ArticlePsychological research2025
Money counts: effects of monetary vs. purely numerical values on the mental representation of quantities.
Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been established that humans use different cognitive models to represent and process numerical quantities. In this study, we investigated whether the representation of monetary values fundamentally differs from the representation of numbers. We also examined the influence of both socio/economic factors and mathematical ability on such representation. A group of adults (N = 272) were tested anonymously with a variant of the number-to-position task (Siegler & Opfer, 2003). They were asked to position on a horizontal line quantities expressed either in numerical format (e.g., 50) in the "Number" conditions or as monetary values (e.g., 50€) in the "Money" conditions. The extremes of the line consisted either of specific values (i.e. "2 or 2€" and "503 or 503€") in the "Fixed" conditions or of unspecific concepts of quantity (e.g., "little" and "a lot") in the "Fuzzy" conditions. A linear model, as opposed to a logarithmic one, provided the best fit of group average data in all experimental conditions except for the "Money-Fuzzy" condition. The percentages of absolute error were significantly larger for Money stimuli than Number stimuli in both Fixed and Fuzzy conditions. This is consistent with the law of diminishing marginal utility, which entails that the value of monetary quantities is described by a concave curve rather than a linear relationship. As expected from previous research, participants who were more used to spending large quantities of money were closer to the linear representation model. Participants with higher mathematical abilities represented numerical values more closely to a linear model, but no such effect was found for monetary quantities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.