Publication: La automaticidad en las restas depende del tamaño del problem
Loading...
Date
2015-05
Authors
Estudillo, Alejandro J. ; Bermudo Romero, Estefanía ; Casado, Nerea ; Prasad Das, Jay
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, Editum
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
Existe considerable evidencia que muestra que las multiplicaciones y las sumas simples se resuelven de manera directa y automática. Sin embargo, la evidencia sobre la automaticidad de restas y divisiones es menos convincente. Usando el paradigma de interferencia en la operación, el presente estudio explora si el resultado de una resta puede ser recuperado inintencionadamente y el rol que juega el tamaño del problema en este proceso. Sesenta y dos participantes tomaron parte en este estudio y tenían que decidir si el resultado de una adición era o no correcto. En las adiciones incorrectas el resultado podía ser la sustracción de los sumandos (7 + 4 = 3) o un número no relacionado (7 + 4 = 5). Nuestros resultados mostraron más errores y respuestas más lentas en aquellos problemas cuyo resultado era la sustracción de los sumandos que en los problemas no relacionados. Sin embargo, estos resultados sólo se encontraron en problemas pequeños (7 + 4 = 3 vs. 7 + 4 = 5) y no en problemas más grandes (14 + 8 = 6 vs. 14 + 8 = 7). Estos resultados sugieren que las sustracciones pequeñas pueden ser recuperadas directamente, cuestionando la existencia de disociaciones entre operaciones. Argumentamos que dependiendo de nuestra experiencia, las mismas representaciones y procesos pueden estar implicados en la resolución de multiplicaciones, adiciones y sustracciones.
The evidence showing that simple multiplications and additions can be solved by direct retrieval is considerable. However evidence about division and subtraction is less compelling. By using a ―cross-operation interference paradigm‖ the present research explores whether subtraction problems can be retrieved without intention and the role of operands‘ problem-size in this process. Sixty-two participants decided whether the displayed addition was correct or not. In ―false additions problems‖ the answer could be the result of the subtractions of the addends (e.g., 7 + 4 = 3) or an unrelated number (e.g., 7 + 4 = 5). Results showed an interference effect, that is, more errors and slower response times in subtraction related problems than in unrelated problems. More importantly, this effect was restricted to small problems (7 + 4 = 3 vs. 7 + 4 = 5), whereas no differences were found for large problems (14 + 8 = 6 vs. 14 + 8 = 7). These results suggest that small subtractions can be retrieved directly as multiplications, questioning a traditional dissociation between operations. We argue that, depending on individual experience, the same representation and processes can be involved in solving additions, subtractions and multiplications.
The evidence showing that simple multiplications and additions can be solved by direct retrieval is considerable. However evidence about division and subtraction is less compelling. By using a ―cross-operation interference paradigm‖ the present research explores whether subtraction problems can be retrieved without intention and the role of operands‘ problem-size in this process. Sixty-two participants decided whether the displayed addition was correct or not. In ―false additions problems‖ the answer could be the result of the subtractions of the addends (e.g., 7 + 4 = 3) or an unrelated number (e.g., 7 + 4 = 5). Results showed an interference effect, that is, more errors and slower response times in subtraction related problems than in unrelated problems. More importantly, this effect was restricted to small problems (7 + 4 = 3 vs. 7 + 4 = 5), whereas no differences were found for large problems (14 + 8 = 6 vs. 14 + 8 = 7). These results suggest that small subtractions can be retrieved directly as multiplications, questioning a traditional dissociation between operations. We argue that, depending on individual experience, the same representation and processes can be involved in solving additions, subtractions and multiplications.
The evidence showing that simple multiplications and additions can be solved by direct retrieval is considerable. However evidence about division and subtraction is less compelling. By using a ―cross-operation interference paradigm‖ the present research explores whether subtraction problems can be retrieved without intention and the role of operands‘ problem-size in this process. Sixty-two participants decided whether the displayed addition was correct or not. In ―false additions problems‖ the answer could be the result of the subtractions of the addends (e.g., 7 + 4 = 3) or an unrelated number (e.g., 7 + 4 = 5). Results showed an interference effect, that is, more errors and slower response times in subtraction related problems than in unrelated problems. More importantly, this effect was restricted to small problems (7 + 4 = 3 vs. 7 + 4 = 5), whereas no differences were found for large problems (14 + 8 = 6 vs. 14 + 8 = 7). These results suggest that small subtractions can be retrieved directly as multiplications, questioning a traditional dissociation between operations. We argue that, depending on individual experience, the same representation and processes can be involved in solving additions, subtractions and multiplications.
The evidence showing that simple multiplications and additions can be solved by direct retrieval is considerable. However evidence about division and subtraction is less compelling. By using a ―cross-operation interference paradigm‖ the present research explores whether subtraction problems can be retrieved without intention and the role of operands‘ problem-size in this process. Sixty-two participants decided whether the displayed addition was correct or not. In ―false additions problems‖ the answer could be the result of the subtractions of the addends (e.g., 7 + 4 = 3) or an unrelated number (e.g., 7 + 4 = 5). Results showed an interference effect, that is, more errors and slower response times in subtraction related problems than in unrelated problems. More importantly, this effect was restricted to small problems (7 + 4 = 3 vs. 7 + 4 = 5), whereas no differences were found for large problems (14 + 8 = 6 vs. 14 + 8 = 7). These results suggest that small subtractions can be retrieved directly as multiplications, questioning a traditional dissociation between operations. We argue that, depending on individual experience, the same representation and processes can be involved in solving additions, subtractions and multiplications.
publication.page.subject
Citation
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Sin licencia Creative Commons.