Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude

Yarden Gliksman, Shai Itamar, Tali Leibovich, Yonatan Melman, Avishai Henik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


What is bigger, an elephant or a mouse? This question can be answered without seeing the two animals, since these objects elicit conceptual magnitude. How is an object conceptual magnitude processed? It was suggested that conceptual magnitude is automatically processed; namely, irrelevant conceptual magnitude can affect performance when comparing physical magnitudes. The current study further examined this question and aimed to expand the understanding of automaticity of conceptual magnitude. Two different objects were presented and participants were asked to decide which object was larger on the screen (physical magnitude) or in the real world (conceptual magnitude), in separate blocks. By creating congruent (the conceptually larger object was physically larger) and incongruent (the conceptually larger object was physically smaller) pairs of stimuli it was possible to examine the automatic processing of each magnitude. A significant congruity effect was found for both magnitudes. Furthermore, quartile analysis revealed that the congruity was affected similarly by processing time for both magnitudes. These results suggest that the processing of conceptual and physical magnitudes is automatic to the same extent. The results support recent theories suggested that different types of magnitude processing and representation share the same core system.

Original languageAmerican English
Article number21446
JournalScientific Reports
StatePublished - 16 Feb 2016

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • General


Dive into the research topics of 'Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this