@misc{FischerShaki2015,
  author    = {Fischer, Martin H. and Shaki, Samuel},
  title     = {Two steps to space for numbers},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {412},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-406522},
  pages     = {3},
  year      = {2015},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{ShakiFischer2020,
  author    = {Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Systematic spatial distortion of quantitative estimates},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {6},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-54545},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-545457},
  pages     = {11},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Magnitude estimation has been studied since the beginnings of scientific psychology and constitutes a fundamental aspect of human behavior. Yet, it has apparently never been noticed that estimates depend on the spatial arrangement used. We tested 167 adults in three experiments to show that the spatial layout of stimuli and responses systematically distorts number estimation, length production, and weight reproduction performance. The direction of distortion depends on the observer's counting habits, but does not seem to reflect the use of spatially associated number concepts. Our results imply that all quantitative estimates are contaminated by a "spell of space" whenever stimuli or responses are spatially distributed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{ShakiFischer2015,
  author    = {Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Newborn chicks need no number tricks},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {414},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-406425},
  pages     = {3},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {kein Abstract},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{FischerWinterFelisattietal.2021,
  author    = {Fischer, Martin and Winter, Bodo and Felisatti, Arianna and Myachykov, Andriy and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. and Shaki, Samuel},
  title     = {More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-55008},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-550086},
  pages     = {1 -- 3},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; {\"O}llinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that "participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load" (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and N{\´u}{\~n}ez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of "addition bias" or "subtraction neglect" to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{ShakiFischer2017,
  author    = {Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Competing Biases in Mental Arithmetic},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-103492},
  pages     = {5},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Mental arithmetic exhibits various biases. Among those is a tendency to overestimate addition and to underestimate subtraction outcomes. Does such "operational momentum" (OM) also affect multiplication and division? Twenty-six adults produced lines whose lengths corresponded to the correct outcomes of multiplication and division problems shown in symbolic format. We found a reliable tendency to over-estimate division outcomes, i.e., reverse OM. We suggest that anchoring on the first operand (a tendency to use this number as a reference for further quantitative reasoning) contributes to cognitive biases in mental arithmetic.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{FischerMiklashevskyShaki2019,
  author    = {Fischer, Martin H. and Miklashevsky, Alex A. and Shaki, Samuel},
  title     = {Commentary : The Developmental Trajectory of the Operational Momentum Effect},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {502},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42316},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-423169},
  pages     = {3},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{FelisattiLaubrockShakietal.2020,
  author    = {Felisatti, Arianna and Laubrock, Jochen and Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Commentary},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {620},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-46041},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-460413},
  pages     = {6},
  year      = {2020},
  language  = {en}
}