In a recent paper by Casasanto and Pitt (2019), the authors addressed a debate regarding the role of order and magnitude in SNARC and SNARC‐like effects. Their position is that all these effects can be explained by order, while magnitude could only account for a subset of evidence. Although we agree that order can probably explain the majority of these effects, in this commentary we argue that magnitude is still relevant, since there is evidence that cannot be explained based on (...) ordinality alone. We argue that SNARC‐like effects can occur for magnitudes not clearly characterized by overlearned ordinality and that magnitude can prevail on order, when the two are pitted against each other. Finally, we propose that different interpretations of the role of order and magnitude depend on the interaction of stimulus properties and task demands. (shrink)

According to proponents of the generalized magnitude system proposal (GMS), SNARC-like effects index spatial mappings of magnitude and provide crucial evidence for the existence of a GMS. Casasanto and Pitt (2019) have argued that these effects, instead, reflect mappings of ordinality, which people compute on the basis of differences among stimuli that vary either qualitatively (e.g., musical pitches) or quantitatively (e.g., dots of different sizes). In response to our paper, Prpic et al. (2021) argued that both magnitude and ordinality play (...) a role in SNARC-like effects. Here, we address each of their arguments and conclude that magnitude is relevant to these effects only insofar as it serves as a basis for ordinality. For this reason and others, SNARC or SNARC-like effects cannot provide evidence for the putative generalized magnitude system. (shrink)

Cognitive Science, Volume 46, Issue 2, February 2022.