112 undergraduates separately judged, the size of the numbers 9 then 221 or
221 then 9 on a 10-point scale or on a continuous line that were both anch
ored only at the extremes by "very, very small" and "very, very large." Rep
licating the 1999 Birnbaum study, 9 was given a higher rating than 221 when
the numbers were judged first by different people on the numerical scale.
However, 9 was given a similar or smaller rating than 221 in the other cond
itions. The results are discussed in terms of context effects.