The relationship between non-symbolic multiplication and division in childhood

Koleen McCrink, Patrick Shafto, Hilary Barth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

Children without formal education in addition and subtraction are able to perform multi-step operations over an approximate number of objects. Further, their performance improves when solving approximate (but not exact) addition and subtraction problems that allow for inversion as a shortcut (e.g., a + b − b = a). The current study examines children's ability to perform multi-step operations, and the potential for an inversion benefit, for the operations of approximate, non-symbolic multiplication and division. Children were trained to compute a multiplication and division scaling factor (*2 or /2, *4 or /4), and were then tested on problems that combined two of these factors in a way that either allowed for an inversion shortcut (e.g., 8*4/4) or did not (e.g., 8*4/2). Children's performance was significantly better than chance for all scaling factors during training, and they successfully computed the outcomes of the multi-step testing problems. They did not exhibit a performance benefit for problems with the a*b/b structure, suggesting that they did not draw upon inversion reasoning as a logical shortcut to help them solve the multi-step test problems.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)686-702
Number of pages17
JournalQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Volume70
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 3 2017

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Physiology
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • General Psychology
  • Physiology (medical)

Keywords

  • Cognitive development
  • Division
  • Inversion
  • Memory
  • Multiplication
  • Number
  • Quantity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The relationship between non-symbolic multiplication and division in childhood'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this