# The representations of the arithmetic operations include functional relationships

## Abstract

Current theories of mathematical problem solving propose that people select a mathematical operation as the solution to a problem on the basis of a structure mapping between their problem representation and the representation of the mathematical operations. The structure-mapping hypothesis requires that the problem and the mathematical representations contain analogous relations. Past research has demonstrated that the problem representation consists of functional relationships, or*principles*. The present study tested whether people represent analogous principles for each arithmetic operation (i.e., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). For each operation, college (Experiments 1 and 2) and 8th grade (Experiment 2) participants were asked to rate the degree to which a set of completed problems was a good attempt at the operation. The pattern of presented answers either violated one of four principles or did not violate any principles. The distance of the presented answers from the correct answers was independently manipulated. Consistent with the hypothesis that people represent the principles, (1) violations of the principles were rated as poorer attempts at the operation, (2) operations that are learned first (e.g., addition) had more extensive principle representations than did operations learned later (multiplication), and (3) principles that are more frequently in evidence developed more quickly. In Experiment 3, college participants rated the degree to which statements were indicative of each operation. The statements were either consistent or inconsistent with one of two principles. The participants’ ratings showed that operations with longer developmental histories had strong principle representations. The implications for a structure-mapping approach to mathematical problem solving are discussed.

### References

- Bassok, M., Chase, V.M., &Martin, S.A. (1998). Adding apples and oranges: Alignment of semantic and formal knowledge.
*Cognitive Psychology*,**35**, 99–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar - Dixon, J. A., &Moore, C. F. (1996). The developmental role of intuitive principles in choosing mathematical strategies.
*Developmental Psychology*,**32**, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dixon, J. A., &Moore, C. F. (1997). Characterizing the intuitive representation in problem solving: Evidence from evaluating mathematical strategies.
*Memory & Cognition*,**25**, 395–412.Google Scholar - Dixon, J. A., &Tuccillo, F. (2001). Generating initial models for reasoning.
*Journal of Experimental Child Psychology*,**78**, 178–212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar - Geary, D. C. (1994).
*Children’s mathematical development: Research and practical applications*. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Geary, D. C. (1995). Reflections of evolution and culture in children’s cognition: Implications for mathematical development and instruction.
*American Psychologist*,**50**, 24–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar - Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.
*Cognitive Science*,**7**, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gentner, D., &Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity.
*American Psychologist*,**52**, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hardiman, P. T., Dufresne, R., &Mestre, J. P. (1989). The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices.
*Memory & Cognition*,**17**, 627–638.Google Scholar - Kintsch, W., &Greeno, J.G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems.
*Psychological Review*,**92**, 109–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar - Krueger, L.E. (1986). Why 2 32 = 5 looks so wrong: On the odd-even rule in product verification.
*Memory & Cognition*,**14**, 141–149.Google Scholar - Krueger, L. E., &Hallford, E. W. (1984). Why 2 + 2 = 5 looks so wrong: On the odd-even rule in sum verification.
*Memory & Cognition*,**12**, 171–180.Google Scholar - Lemaire, P., &Reder, L. (1999). What affects strategy selection in arithmetic? The example of parity and five effects on product verification.
*Memory & Cognition*,**27**, 364–382.Google Scholar - Levin, I. P., Johnson, R.D., &Faraone, S.V. (1984). Information integration in price-quality tradeoffs: The effect of missing information.
*Memory & Cognition*,**12**, 96–102.Google Scholar - Miller, K., Perlmutter, M., &Keating, D. (1984). Cognitive arithmetic: Comparison of operations.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition*,**10**, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moore, C. F., Dixon, J.A., &Haines, B.A. (1991). Components of understanding in proportional reasoning: A fuzzy set representation of developmental progression.
*Child Development*,**62**, 441–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989).
*Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics*. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar - Nesher, P. (1982). Levels of description in the analysis of addition and subtraction word problems. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.),
*Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective*(pp. 25–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Novick, L. R., &Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition*,**17**, 398–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Reese, C. M., Miller, K. E., Mazzeo, J., &Dossey, J. A. (1997).
*NAEP 1996 mathematics report card for the nation and the states*. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar - Rittle-Johnson, B., &Siegler, R. S. (1998). The relation between conceptual and procedural knowledge in learning mathematics: A review. In C. Donlan (Ed.),
*The development of mathematical skills: Studies in developmental psychology*(pp. 75–110). Hove, U.K.: Taylor & Francis, Psychology Press.Google Scholar - Ross, B. H., &Kilbane, M. C. (1997). Effects of principle explanation and superficial similarity on analogical mapping in problem solving.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition*,**23**, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schneider, W., Gruber, H., Gold, A., &Opwis, K. (1993). Chess expertise and memory for chess positions in children and adults.
*Journal of Experimental Child Psychology*,**56**, 328–349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar - Stevens, S. S. (1974). Perceptual magnitude and its measurement. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.),
*Handbook of Perception: Vol. II. Psychophysical judgment and measurement*(pp. 361–389). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Surber, C. F. (1980). The development of reversible operations in judgments of ability, effort, and performance.
*Child Development*,**51**, 1018–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar