Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Cultural factors weaken but do not reverse left-to-right spatial biases in numerosity processing: Data from Arabic and English monoliterates and Arabic-English biliterates

Research output: Journal Publications and ReviewsRGC 21 - Publication in refereed journalpeer-review

1 Downloads (CityUHK Scholars)

Abstract

Directional response biases due to a conceptual link between space and number, such as a left-to-right hand bias for increasing numerical magnitude, are known as the SNARC (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes) effect. We investigated how the SNARC effect for numerosities would be influenced by reading-writing direction, task instructions, and ambient visual environment in four literate populations exemplifying opposite reading-writing cultures—namely, Arabic (right-to-left script) and English (left-to-right script). Monoliterates and biliterates in Jordan and the U.S. completed a speeded numerosity comparison task to assess the directionality and magnitude of a SNARC effect in their numerosity processing. Monoliterates’ results replicated previously documented effects of reading-writing direction and task instructions: the SNARC effect found in left-to-right readers was weakened in right-to-left readers, and the left-to-right group exhibited a task-dependency effect (SNARC effect in the smaller condition, reverse SNARC effect in the larger condition). Biliterates’ results did not show a clear effect of environment; instead, both biliterate groups resembled English monoliterates in showing a left-to-right, task-dependent SNARC effect, albeit weaker than English monoliterates’. The absence of significant biases in all Arabic-reading groups (biliterates and Arabic monoliterates) points to a potential conflict between distinct spatial-numerical mapping codes. This view is explained in terms of the proposed Multiple Competing Codes Theory (MCCT), which posits three distinct spatial-numerical mapping codes (innate, cardinal, ordinal) during numerical processing—each involved at varying levels depending on individual and task factors. © 2021 Lopiccolo, Chang.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0261146
Number of pages22
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume16
Issue number12
Online published16 Dec 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2021
Externally publishedYes

Funding

The study reported in this paper is based upon research for the first author’s master’s degree in Applied Linguistics at Boston University (BU), which was funded jointly by grants from BU’s Institute for the Study of Muslim Societies and Civilizations (http://www.bu.edu/smscinst/) and from the Jordanian-American Fulbright Commission (https://www.fulbright-jordan.org/) to D.L. as well as a BU Peter Paul Career Development Professorship (https://www.bu.edu/ provost/awards-publications/award-opportunities/ career-development-professorships/) to C.B.C. Funding for publication was also received from the Boston University Center for the Humanities (http:// www.bu.edu/humanities/).

Research Keywords

  • numerosity
  • number
  • literacy
  • bilingualism
  • biliteracy
  • processing
  • environment

Publisher's Copyright Statement

  • This full text is made available under CC-BY 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cultural factors weaken but do not reverse left-to-right spatial biases in numerosity processing: Data from Arabic and English monoliterates and Arabic-English biliterates'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this