This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex

more »

... rm) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: a b s t r a c t A major source of errors in rational number tasks is the inappropriate application of natural number rules. We hypothesized that this is an instance of intuitive reasoning and thus can persist in adults, even when they respond correctly. This was tested by means of a reaction time method, relying on a dual process perspective that differentiates between intuitive and analytic reasoning. We measured fifty-eight educated adults' accuracies and reaction times in a variety of rational number tasks. In half of the items (congruent), the correct response was compatible with natural number properties (thus intuitive reasoning led to a correct answer). In contrast, in the incongruent items, intuitive reasoning would lead to an incorrect answer. In comparing two numbers, there were hardly any natural-numberbased errors but correct responses to incongruent items took longer. Regarding the effect of operations, more mistakes were made in incongruent items, and correct responses required longer reaction time. Incongruent items about density elicited considerably more errors than congruent items. These findings can be considered as evidence that the natural number bias is an instance of intuitive reasoning.