Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Psychologica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actpsy

Developmental trajectories of strategy use in children with

mathematical anxiety
Sarit Ashkenazi *, Nitzan Cohen
The Seymour Fox School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Israel

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The main goal of the present study was to explore strategy selection in high mathematical anxiety (MA) in­
Mathematical anxiety dividuals, and to test the role of development in the selection of strategy. We tested 2nd, 3rd and 5th graders with
Strategy selection high or low MA in simple and complex addition problems. Participants first solved the problems and were then
Development
asked to report the strategy that they used. During elementary school, typically developing children change
strategy use. In the first years backup strategies of counting are very frequent, but with maturation and
schooling, they can shift to memory- based strategies. Hence, we tested finger counting and advanced memory
based strategies in high MA children. In finger counting, high MA children showed developmental delay. For
example, in the third grade, low MA children stopped using finger counting, while high MA participants
continued to use it. However, in the case of advanced strategy use, we found a different pattern: regardless of age,
high MA children used less advanced strategies than low MA participants. Moreover, usage of advanced memory
based strategies was modulated by visuospatial working memory abilities in the two groups. The present results
suggest that the MA participant has atypical developmental trajectories in strategy use.

1. Introduction
Learning to solve addition problems efficiently and with little effort,
is one of the most fundamental skills taught during the elementary
school years (Geary, 2004; Geary & Brown, 1991; Siegler & Robinson,
1982; Siegler & Taraban, 1986). It is the most basic arithmetic task, and
is strongly related to enumeration. Multiple studies have tested the
developmental trajectories of solving simple addition problems (Geary,
2004; Geary & Brown, 1991; Siegler & Robinson, 1982; Siegler & Tar­
aban, 1986), in typical and atypical development (Geary & Brown,
1991). However, only a few studies tested development of addition in
children with mathematical anxiety (MA) (Si et al., 2016). Hence, the
aim of the present study is to test the developmental trajectories of
strategy use in addition problems in children with high MA. MA is a
feeling of tension and anxiety that interferes with the manipulation of
numbers and the solution of mathematical problems in a wide variety of
everyday life and academic situations (Suinn & Winston, 2003). There is
an ongoing debate in relation to the existence and influence of MA in
young children. In adults (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001) and adolescents
(Hembree, 1990; Ma, 1999), there is a negative relation between MA
and mathematical performances (Carey et al., 2016; Foley et al., 2017).
However, in young children the relation between math performance and
math anxiety is less clear (Vukovic et al., 2013). Hence, it is important to
explore in greater detail the developmental trajectories of children with
high MA.
1.1. Strategy selection
Every problem can be solved in multiple ways. The way we choose to
handle it may depend on our age, cognitive abilities, experience, feelings
or thoughts (Payne et al., 1988). The selection of strategy becomes
adaptive with age and maturation as we gain experience, and we tend to
choose the efficient strategy which leads to the fastest and most accurate
solution (Siegler et al., 1996). During the initial stages of elementary
school, children usually count both addends when solving addition
problems. These counting procedures can be assisted by fingers as
counting aids (finger counting) or without fingers (mental counting). In
the counting all procedure children count both addends. However, with
development and understanding of counting principles, children use
counting on strategies where only one of the addends is being counted,
while the other one is directly represented. Repetitive use of backup,
non-advanced counting strategies results in formation of memories for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sarit.ashkenazi@mail.huji.ac.il (S. Ashkenazi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103293
Received 5 March 2020; Received in revised form 23 February 2021; Accepted 1 March 2021
Available online 18 March 2021
0001-6918/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen
basic facts. Once formed, these memory representations result in the use
of advanced memory based strategies, such as direct retrieval and
decomposition based on calculating the answer by retrieving a partial
sum and counting the rest of the answer (Geary, 2004; Geary & Brown,
1991). Children with mathematical learning disabilities tend to use the
same strategies as typically developing children. However, the devel­
opmental trajectory is different; for example, children with mathemat­
ical learning disabilities continue to use finger counting long after their
typically developing peers. Although developmental trajectories of
solving addition problems were tested multiple times in typical (Bar­
rouillet & Lépine, 2005; Devine et al., 2018; Geary, 2004; Geary &
Brown, 1991; Siegler & Robinson, 1982; Siegler & Taraban, 1986) and
atypical development (Torbeyns et al., 2004), the developmental tra­
jectories of strategy selection in MA is still largely unknown (Si et al.,
2016).
1.2. Math anxiety and strategies
Anxiety reduces attentional control and impairs the executive func­
tions. Specifically, it impairs inhibition of dominant responses and
shifting between tasks (Eysenck et al., 2007). These abilities, among
others, have an important role in the selection of advanced and efficient
strategies (Miyake et al., 2000). Very few studies have directly examined
strategy selection among high MA children (Imbo & Vandierendonck,
2007; Si et al., 2016) or adults (Ashkenazi & Najjar, 2018; Sidney et al.,
2018). One study found that children with high MA used retrieval less
often and less frequently than their low MA peers (Imbo & Vandier­
endonck, 2007). This was found in children between 10- to 12-years old.
Hence, similar to participants with learning disabilities, individuals with
high MA tended to employ backup procedural strategies rather than
direct retrieval, which are less efficient (Imbo & Vandierendonck,
2007). Si et al. (2016) tested the effect of MA on strategy choice in
computational estimation and mental arithmetic tasks, and examined
age-related differences. They tested 4th and 6th graders on strategy
selection. The results indicated that MA had a greater effect on
computational estimation than on mental arithmetic. Moreover, MA had
a greater effect on 6th grade students compared to 4th graders and
adults.
Working memory (WM) refers to a mental workspace (including the
phonological loop, visuospatial system and central executive) that is
involved in controlling, regulating, and actively maintaining relevant
information to accomplish complex cognitive tasks (Miyake & Shah,
1999). The involvement of WM in calculations depends on the strategy
use. For example, the phonological loop is needed when one uses a
counting strategy (Raghubar et al., 2010). In a study with children with
MA, Ramirez et al. (2016) grouped the high MA participants based on
WM abilities. They found that participants with high WM abilities ten­
ded to rely on advanced strategies (such as direct retrieval or decom­
position), while participants with low WM abilities relied on strategies
with minimal WM demand (such as counting all). The use of advanced
memory based strategies partially mediated the relationship between
MA and math achievement: advanced strategies are prone to suffer from
the fact that WM capacity is co-opted by MA (for similar results in adults,
see (Beilock & Carr, 2005; Beilock & DeCaro, 2007)). Hence, children
with MA and high WM capabilities show poorer performance in math­
ematics tasks with high WM demands, because they cannot access
strategies on which they would normally rely.
1.3. The role of visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM) in MA
Individual VSWM‫ה‬v ability is a unique predictor of early math
achievement, while the other components of WM predicts learning in
general (Raghubar et al., 2010). Recently, it has been reported that MA
participants display weaknesses in basic numerical abilities, such as
number comparison (Dietrich et al., 2015; Georges et al., 2016; Maloney
et al., 2011; Maloney et al., 2012) and non-symbolic quantity
2
Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293
comparison (Georges et al., 2016). These abnormalities have been
linked to spatial weaknesses (Georges et al., 2016; Maloney et al., 2012).
It has been hypothesized that innate quantities representation is based
on a mental number line that is represented spatially and requires
VSWM (Cohen Kadosh et al., 2008; Dehaene, 1992; Dehaene et al., 2003;
Halberda et al., 2008). Hence, the cognitive deficiency view (Douglas &
LeFevre, 2018) suggests that participants with low spatial abilities (such
as low VSWM) will show weakness in the spatial preverbal representa­
tion of quantities. These weaknesses will later lead to MA. Hence, low
VSWM can serve as a particular source of vulnerability in participants
with high MA.
1.4. The current study
The current study first aimed to examine the developmental trajec­
tories of strategy selection ability among high and low MA individuals.
We selected three age groups that are critical for the selection of strategy
in typical development: second, third and fifth graders (Geary et al.,
2004). The second goal of the present study was to test the role of VSWM
in the process of strategy selection. It has been reported that low WM
abilities are related to non-advanced primitive strategies selection such
as finger counting, while high WM abilities lead to the use of advanced
strategies such as direct retrieval and decomposition (Geary, 2004).
However, the role of VSWM specific abilities in strategy selection rather
than general WM abilities has rarely been examined. Due to the fact that
VSWM is a unique predictor for math ability, especially in younger ages
(Raghubar et al., 2010), we believe that VSWM individual abilities will
be positively correlated with usage of advanced memory based strate­
gies, mostly in our younger participants. Moreover, we aimed to
examine whether the MA group modulates this relation. If deficits in
VSWM are at the heart of MA, then the relation between VSWM and
strategy selection should be stronger in high MA individuals, compared
to low MA individuals.
To test the development of addition problems, we will use four
measurements. 1) percentage of usage of finger counting, 2) percentage
of usage of advanced strategies, 3) accuracy and 4) reaction time (RT).
We tested a well-documented paradigm where participants verbally
report the strategies that have been used in every trial (Geary & Brown,
1991). We modulated operation complexity and tested simple versus
complex addition. During typical development, the percentage of usage
of finger counting decreased with age, while the percentage of usage of
advanced strategies (direct retrieval and decomposition) increases with
age. We expected the high MA participant would show increased usage
of finger counting, especially in younger ages, and decreased usage of
advanced strategies. The secondary goal of the present study is to
dissociate participants with MA from participants with mathematical
disability (MD) (Mammarella et al., 2015). Participants with MD show
increased usage of finger counting at all points of development (Geary,
2004). We hope to find differentiated developmental trajectories in MA.
The effective drop in performances theory suggests that MA nega­
tively affects math performance due to the limited WM resources
required for solution of math problems (Ashcraft & Faust, 1994; Ashcraft
& Kirk, 2001; Ashcraft & Moore, 2009). It is observed when math is
performed under timed, high-stake conditions. Accordingly, arithmetic
tasks with high WM demands are more prone to be affected by MA, as
opposed to easier tasks with low WM demands. Therefore, high MA
children should show a greater weakness in complex problems
compared to simple problems. Hence, we expected to find a greater
influence of complexity among high MA children compared to low MA
children. Specifically, in complex problems, group differences in the
usage of advanced memory based and figure counting strategies should
be greater than in simple problems.
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Ninety four students participated in the study, including 31 2nd
graders (average age 7.8, 52% girls), 31 3rd graders (average age 8.9,
52% girls) and 32 5th graders (average age 10.7, 53% girls) recruited
from six local elementary schools in the Jerusalem area. All participants
were native Hebrew speakers, with no reported learning disabilities or
severe learning deficits (according to teachers’ reports). Students with
learning disabilities, psychiatric and neurological disorders were
excluded.
2.2. Procedure
All participants performed the experiment in the morning at school.
Every student performed the task individually in a quiet room beginning
with the Corsi Task to test VSWM, then with the Strategy Assessment,
and concluded with the Math Anxiety Questionnaire.
2.2.1. Assessment of visual-spatial working memory: Corsi block tapping
task forward (Corsi, 1973)
This task was conducted via an online computer program - PEBL the
Psychology Experiment Building Language; http://pebl.sourceforge.net
(Mueller & Piper, 2014). During this task nine blocks were presented on
the computer screen in varying locations. Each trial consisted of a pre­
sentation phase in which a series of blocks were illuminated one at a
time – the sequence length (number of illuminated blocks within each
trial) increased every two trials, ranging from two blocks to seven
blocks. During the response phase of each trial, the participant was
required to click, using a mouse, on the blocks in the same order as they
were presented. A practice block of three trials was administered prior to
the experimental block – each practice trial consisted of a sequence
length of three illuminated blocks. If the participant answered correctly
at least one of the two trials within each sequence length, the experiment
continued. If not, the task was terminated. At the end of the task, the
participant’s visual-spatial working memory score was computed.
2.2.2. Strategy assessment- simple and complex addition problem
Each child’s strategy use for single-digit addition problems (e.g., 2 +
4 = ?) was first assessed using standardized, well-validated measures
that classify strategies based on reaction time (RT) patterns, experi­
menter observation, and child’s report (Geary et al., 2004; Wu et al.,
2008). The problems were presented one at a time on a computer
monitor. The experiment started with 6 practice trials. Then there were
20 simple problems with random pairs of integers from 2 to 9 (e.g., 2 +
4 = ?) and sums ranging from 5 to 16. Finally, the following 6 problems
were classified as complex (e.g., 9 + 15 =?), comprising one two-digit
integer (from 14 to 19) and one single digit integer (from 3 to 9) sum­
ming from 21 to 25.
Problems with identical addends (e.g., 2 + 2, 5 + 5); either a 0 or 1
were excluded because they evince less strategy variability (Siegler,
1987). No repetition of either addend was allowed across consecutive
problems. Children were instructed to say the answer as soon as they
arrived at it. The experimenter then probed the child on which strategy
was used during problem solving. Responses were categorized as:
retrieval (e.g., ‘just knew it’), finger count (e.g., ‘counted on my fingers’)
or manual count, ‘counted in my head’, decomposition (e.g., 9 + 5 = 9
+(1 + 4) = (9 + 1) + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14), fingers (i.e., the child looked at
his or her fingers but did not count them) and other/multiple strategies.
Trials in which the experimenter noted overt signs of counting even
when the child reported retrieval were classified as counting. A voice
key, triggered by the child’s answer, measured RT.
2.2.3. Assessment of math anxiety
Children’s math anxiety was evaluated using a Hebrew translated
3
Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293
and adjusted form of the well-known Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale
(AMAS; Hopko et al., 2003). The instrument was translated by Prof. Orly
Rubinsten’s lab to Hebrew (forward translation) and then from Hebrew
back into English (back translation) to ensure the validity of the trans­
lation (Daches Cohen & Rubinsten, 2017). The AMAS is a nine-item self-
report questionnaire found to be as effective as the longer Math Anxiety
Rating Scale (Hopko et al., 2003). Each item consists of a statement
describing an event, and participants indicate how anxious it would
make them on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 =
sometimes, 4 = usually, 5 = always). The modification of the AMAS for
primary-school students involved changing certain wordings, such as
“fear” instead of “anxious.” Scores on the AMAS range from 9 to 45, with
a higher score indicating a higher level of math anxiety. Cronbach’s
alpha for the AMAS in the current sample was 0.77. The sum of the 9
item score in the current sample ranged between 9 and 41. The score
divided the participants into two groups: low and high math anxiety
groups. For the partition, we used a median split procedure (Georges
et al., 2016), i.e., participants were assigned to either a low (LMA) or a
high (HMA) math anxiety group if their score was below or above the
group median score, respectively. We calculated the group median for
all the age groups of the participants; the group median was 17. Hence,
every participant with a score of 17 or below was assigned to the LMA
group, while every participant with a score of 18 and above was assigned
to the HMA group. Accordingly, 16 2nd graders were assigned to the low
MA group (mean anxiety = 12.56, S.D., 2.39) and 15 were assigned to
the high MA group (mean anxiety = 21.73, S.D., 2.37). 20 of the 3rd
graders were assigned to the low MA group (mean anxiety = 13.5, S.D.,
2.70) and 11 were assigned to the high MA group (mean anxiety =
25.63, S.D., 6.31). 17 of the 5th graders were assigned to the low MA
group (mean anxiety = 13.17, S.D., 2.65), and 16 were assigned to the
high MA group (mean anxiety = 21.93, S.D., 3.42).
3. Results
Table 1 represents the social demographic background information
of the two MA groups as a function of age group. As can be seen, all the
MA groups in all grades were similar in age, handedness, number of
participants, percentage of females and visuospatial memory span.
However, as expected the high MA group had higher math anxiety than
the low MA group in all the grades.
3.1. RT
A three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on
mean RT with problem type (simple or complex) as the within subjects
factor and mathematics anxiety group (Low or High) and grade as the
between subjects factor; individual memory span served as a covariant.
First, the main effect of grade reached significance F(2, 86) = 17.59,
partial η2 = 0.29, p < .01, observed power = 1. As expected, RTs were
longer in the second grade (M = 5295 SD = 1847), as compared to the
third grade (M = 3249 SD = 1476), t(60) = 4.81, p < .001. However, RT
was similar between the third grade and the fifth grade (M = 2654, SD =
1454), t(61) = 1.61 p = .11. Second, the main effect of anxiety group
reached significance F(1, 86) = 15.01, partial η2 = 0.15, p < .001,
observed power = 0.97. High MA participants were much slower to
respond (M = 4340, SD = 2053) as compared to low MA participants (M
= 2886, SD = 1445). The interaction between problem type and
mathematics anxiety group reached significance, F(2, 86) = 8.16, partial
η2 = 0.16, p < .01, observed power = 0.95. Hence, we tested differences
between smaller and larger problems in each grade. Differences between
the two groups on smaller and larger problems reached significance (t
(38) = 8.78, p < .001 and t(53) = 6.72, p < .001). However, the dif­
ferences were much greater in the high MA group (M = 1992, SD =
2172) as compared to the low MA group (M = 1485, SD = 1061). There
were no main effects or interaction with memory span (see Fig. 1).
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293

Table 1
Social demographic background information.
Second grade Third grade Fifth grade

HMA LMA sig HMA LMA Sig HMA LMA sig

Age in months 94.15 94 0.92 107.41 106.57 0.59 129.53 127.87 0.33
% Right-handed
N 11 20 20 14 15 17
% Females 54.5 55 35.7 58.8 53.3 52.9
VSWM 4.48 4.18 0.25 4.62 4.86 0.25 4.94 4.86 0.72
MA 20.3 11.36 0.00 21.06 12.24 0.00 23.12 12.27 0.00

Fig. 1. Mean reaction times (RTs) as a function of grade and mathematics anxiety group in smaller problems (A) or larger problems (B). RT decreases as grade
increases. Moreover, RTs were longer in the high MA group compared to the low MA group. Last, the size effect (differences between smaller and larger problems)
was greater in the high MA group as compared to the low MA group. Note- * p < .05, ** p < .01.

3.2. Error rates
A three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on
mean error rates with problem type (smaller or larger) as the within
subjects factor and mathematics anxiety group (Low or High) and grade
as the between subjects factor; individual memory span served as a
covariant. None of the main effects or interactions reached significance
(see Fig. 2).
3.3. Strategy Selection using finger counting
A three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on

4
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen
Fig. 2. Mean accuracy as a function of grade and mathematics anxiety group in smaller problems (A) or larger problems (B). There were no main effects or
interactions.
strategies (percentage of use of finger counting) with problem type
(smaller or larger) as the within subjects factor, and mathematics anx­
iety group (Low or High) and grade as the between subjects factor; in­
dividual memory span served as a covariant. The main effect of grade
reached significance F(2, 87) = 5.84, partial η2 = 0.12, p < .01,
observed power = 0.40. As expected, the use of finger counting was
more frequent in the second grade (M = 22.31%, SD = 28.80%),
compared to the third grade (M = 7.99%, SD = 19.39%), t(60) = 2.30, p
< .05, and in the third grade compared to the fifth grade (M = 0.67%,
SD = 2.12%),t(61) = 2.12 p < .05.
The interaction between problem type and group reached signifi­
cance F(1, 87) = 5.70, partial η2 = 0.06, p < .05, observed power = 0.66.
Moreover, this interaction was modulated by anxiety group F(2, 87) =
3.16, partial η2 = 0.07, p < .05, observed power = 0.59 (see Fig. 3).
Hence, we tested differences in percentage of finger counting use in each
of the grades and problem types between anxiety groups.
First, in the second grade, in smaller problems, the low and high MA
groups used a large percentage of finger counting; the two groups used
similar percentages of finger counting t(29) = − 0.56 p = .88. In the high
MA group, the percentage of use of finger counting increased for larger
problems, t(19) = − 2.69 p < .05. However, in the low MA group, the
proportion of use of finger counting in larger problems was not signifi­
cantly different than in smaller problems, t(10) = 2.12 p = .24. Differ­
ences in finger counting use between high and low MA group on larger
5
Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293
problems failed to reach significance t(29) = 1.28, p = .21.
Second, in the third grade, the high MA group, but not the low MA
group, continued frequent use of finger counting. Hence, finger counting
use was more frequent in the high MA group as compared to the low MA
group, for both the smaller problems, t(29) = 2.53, p < .05, as well as in
the larger problems, t(16) = 2.13 p < .05. The differences between the
percentages of use of finger counting were not significant between
smaller and larger problems in either group.
Third, in the fifth grade group, the use of finger counting in the two
groups decreased dramatically, both for smaller and larger problems.
Hence, the use of finger counting did no differ between groups for
smaller or larger problems, and did not differ between larger or smaller
problems in the high MA group as well as the low MA group (see
Table 2). There were no main effects or interactions with memory span.
3.4. Strategy selection using advanced strategy
A three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on
strategies (percentage of use of advanced strategy addition of the per­
centage of usage of direct retrieval and composition) with problem type
(smaller or larger) as the within subjects factor and mathematics anxiety
group (Low or High), and grade as the between subjects factors; indi­
vidual memory span served as a covariant. The main effect of memory
span reached significance F(1, 87) = 4.14, partial η2 = 0.07, p < .05,
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293

Fig. 3. Mean usage of finger counting strategy as a

function of grade and mathematics anxiety group
in smaller problems (A) or larger problems (B).
The interaction between grade, anxiety group and
size reached significance. As can be seen, usage of
finger counting was similar between anxiety
groups in the second grade, but only the high
anxiety group showed increase in usage for larger
problems compared to smaller problems. In the
third grade most of the low anxiety children
stopped using finger counting, but high MA chil­
dren continued to use finger counting regardless of
problem size. In the fifth grade both low and high
anxiety children stopped using finger counting.
Note- * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Table 2 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 5

Mean usage of finger counting strategy (standard deviation in brackets) as a
function of grade and mathematics anxiety group. HMA = high mathematics
anxiety and LMA = low mathematics anxiety. 100
Second grade Third grade Fifth grade

HMA LMA HMA LMA HMA LMA

80
Strategy (%)

Smaller 19 17 13 0 (0)% 1 2
60
problems (33)% (26)% (20)% (0.2)% (0.5)%
Larger 33 17 16 0 (0)% 0 (0)% 0 (0)%
problems (35)% (29)% (30)% 40

20
observed power = 0.52. There was a positive correlation between the
usage of advanced strategies and memory span r (92) = 0.30, p < .01 0
(see Fig. 4). The main effect of group also reached significance (1, 87) = 2 3 4 5 6 7
3.32, partial η2 = 0.07, p < .05, observed power = 0.61. The percentage
of usage of advanced strategies increased between the second (M =
68.32%, SD = 30.48%) and third grade (M = 87.17%, SD = 23.83%), t Fig. 4. Correlation between VSWM (visual spatial working memory) span
tested by the CORSI tapping task and percentage of usage of advanced strategy
(60) = − 2.71 p < .01. However, the percentage of usage of advance
(sum of percentage of usage of direct retrieval and decomposition). There was a
strategies stayed high and stable between the third and fifth grades (M
positive correlation between the usage of advanced strategies and memory
= 89.17%, SD = 20.07%), t(61) = − 0.36, p = .72. The main effect of span, r (92) = 0.30, p < .01; as memory span increases, the usage of advanced
anxiety group also reached significance F(1, 87) = 9.58, partial η2 = strategies increases as well.

6
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293

0.10, p < .01, observed power = 0.86. Across ages the percentage of model reached significance (R2 = 0.25, p < .01). However, the second
usage of advance strategies was much higher in the low MA group (M = step did not add any significant variance (R2 change = 0.02, p = .36).
91.4%, SD = 20.11%) compared to the high MA group (M = 74.4%, SD Hence, we will not refer to it further.
= 28.57%). None of the other interactions reached significance. How­ First, the effect of MA was highly significant (β = − 0.26, t(87) =
ever, the interaction between anxiety group and problem type was − 2.7, p < .01), high levels of MA predict lower use of advanced stra­
marginally significant F(1, 87) = 3.92, partial η2 = 0.04, p = .05, tegies. Moreover, the effect of gender was significant (β = − 0.24, t(87)
observed power = 0.49. Specifically, low MA used advanced strategies = − 2.5, p < .05), specifically, males used more advanced strategies
similarly in smaller (M = 91.96%, SD = 20.34%) and larger problems compared to females. Next, the effect of age reached significance (β =
(M = 90.83%, SD = 21.67%), t(39) = 0.59 p = .56. However, High MA 0.24, t(87) = 2.00, p < .05): as age increased, usage of advanced stra­
used advanced strategies more in the smaller problems (M = 79.37%, tegies increased as well. Last, the effect of VSWM was also significant (β
SD = 26.71%) as compared to larger problems (M = 69.44%, SD = = 0.20, t(87) = 2.36, p < .05). Higher memory spans predicted greater
34.83%) t(53) = 3.00, p < .01 (Fig. 5).
Table 3
3.5. Regression analysis Regression analysis.
Ba SE β t p-value
3.5.1. Usage of advanced strategies
We ran multiple regression analyses to predict the usage of advanced Sex − 0.06 0.02 − 0.24 − 2.55 0.01
Memory span 0.08 0.04 0.2 2.00 0.05
strategies with gender (coded as a dummy variable), age in months (as a MA − 0.01 0.00 − 0.26 − 2.74 0.01
continuous variable), memory span, mathematics anxiety (as a contin­ Age 0.00 0.00 0.23 2.36 0.02
uous variable) and interactions between gender and the other variables. a
Note: Dependent variable: percentage of usage of advanced strategies, MA =
We used two steps: in the first step, we included all the main effects, and
mathematics anxiety.
in the second step we added the interactions. In the first step, the whole

Fig. 5. Mean usage of advanced strategy (sum of percentage of usage of direct retrieval and decomposition) as a function of grade and mathematics anxiety group in
smaller problems (A) or larger problems (B). As can be seen, the usage of advanced strategies was similar between anxiety groups in the second grade, but only the
high anxiety group showed decreased usage for larger problems compared to smaller problems. Note- * p < .05, ** p < .01.

7
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen
usage of advanced strategies (see Table 3).
3.5.2. Usage of finger counting
We ran multiple regression analyses to predict the usage of finger
counting from gender (coded as a dummy variable), age in months (as a
continuous variable), memory span, MA (as a continuous variable) and
interactions between gender and the other variables. We used two steps:
in the first step we included all the main effects and in the second step we
added the interactions. In the first step the whole model reached sig­
nificance (R2 = 0.22, p < .01). However, the second step did not add any
significant variance (R2 change = 0.034, p = .14). Hence, we will not
refer to it further.
First, the effect of age was highly significant (β = 0.37, t(87) =
− 3.69, p < .01), as age increased the percentage of usage of finger
counting decreased. Second, the effect of gender was marginally sig­
nificant (β = 0.16, t(87) = 1.75, p = .08) . All the other predictors were
not significant (see Table 4).
4. Discussion
The main goal of the present study was to explore strategy selection
in high MA individuals, and to test the role of development and indi­
vidual VSWM abilities in the selection of strategy. To test strategy se­
lection, we used a well-documented paradigm of Strategy choices in
simple and complex addition (Geary & Brown, 1991). During elemen­
tary school, with maturation, typically developing children change
strategy use. In their first years, backup strategies of counting are very
frequent, but with maturation and schooling, they can shift to memory-
based strategies. Moreover, the shift to memory- based strategies can be
found earlier in simple problems compared to complex problems (Geary,
2004). The present study aimed to explore this developmental process in
MA. Also, previous studies found that MA participants have a particular
weakness in harder problems with high WM demand, as compared to
easy problems with low WM demand (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001; Ashcraft &
Moore, 2009). Hence, we expected to find a greater influence of size of
operation in high MA compared to low MA individuals, regarding RTs
and strategy selection. In line with this view, RT analysis revealed that
high MA participants were slower to respond in general, and showed a
particular weakness in larger problems compared to smaller problems.
In strategy selection, we found a very different pattern of development
for the usage of finger counting and the usage of advanced strategies. In
finger counting, high MA children showed developmental delay. Spe­
cifically, in the second grade, high and low MA participants showed high
use of finger counting. However, high MA children, but not low MA
children, showed an increase in the usage of finger counting in larger
problems compared to smaller problems. In the third grade, low MA
children stopped using finger counting, while high MA participants
continued to do so. Last, in the fifth grade, both groups stopped using
finger counting.
However, in the case of advanced strategy use, we found a different
pattern: regardless of age, high MA children used less advanced strate­
gies than low MA children. Similar to the RT analysis, usage of advanced
strategy was modulated by problem size for the high MA participants,
but not for the low MA participants.
Table 4
Regression analysis: predicting general accuracy rates using MA, spatial strate­
gies and non-spatial strategies variables.
Ba SE β t p-value
Gender 0.035 0.020 0.164 1.745 0.084
Memory span − 0.036 0.034 − 0.106 − 1.054 0.295
MA 0.005 0.003 0.148 1.556 0.123
Age − 0.005 0.001 − 0.373 − 3.689 0.000
a
Note: Dependent variable: percentage of usage of finger counting. MA =
mathematics anxiety.
8
Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293
Similar to the group analysis, we also used MA and age as continuous
variables to predict the usage of finger counting and advanced strate­
gies. Other factors were also included in the analysis: 1) gender 2)
VSWM span. Advanced strategy use was predicted by age and MA level,
as well as VSWM and gender. Finger counting was predicted only by age.
Another goal of the present study was to explore the role of VSWM in
strategies selection and its interactions with MA level. The results
indicated that the usage of advanced strategies is modulated by VSWM
(that was found both in the regression and ANCOVA model), but this
effect does not differ between groups (age as well as MA level).
4.1. The effect of development in MA
Most of the studies on MA tested older children and adults, but not
children as young as second graders (Imbo & Vandierendonck, 2007).
Vukovic et al. (2013) tested MA in young children, in a longitudinal
study between the second and the third grade. The study tested the re­
lations between MA, mathematical performance and WM. First, the re­
sults indicated that children in the second grade can experience MA. As
in adults and older children, it was found that MA represents a unique
source of individual differences in children’s calculation skills and
mathematical applications, but not in children’s geometric reasoning
(Vukovic et al., 2013).
One of the main findings of the present study is the dissociation
between developmental trajectories of the usage of different strategies.
While the high MA children showed lower use of advanced strategies
across ages, MA children showed higher usage of finger counting only in
younger ages, but in the older ages this tendency was absent.
In advanced strategy use, we found that children with high MA use
less direct retrieval and decomposition, regardless of their age. A similar
finding, i.e., lower usage of direct retrieval strategy by high MA children
compared to their peers, was already reported by Imbo and Vandier­
endonck (2007) for older children (4th to 6th graders) and for simpler
problems. This is in line with the results of the present study, and for
adults with high MA, in complex addition problems. Ashkenazi and
Najjar (2018) found that high MA participants used the common strat­
egy less often compared to low MA participants, and instead more often
employed unusual strategies. Moreover, this effect was stronger in the
condition that required high WM demand than in the condition that
involved minimal WM demand.
Contrary to the finding that advanced strategy use was not modu­
lated by development, higher use of finger counting as a function of MA
level was found to differ between age groups. Only in the third grade did
high MA individuals continue to use finger counting, but their low MA
peers had already stopped using finger counting. Geary (2004) tested
strategy use in normal children and those with MD as a function of
development. The results indicated that the usage of finger counting is
quite normal and very frequent in young children in the first grade (both
normal and MD). However, in the fifth grade the usage of finger
counting decreases dramatically in the normal group, but MD continue
to use finger counting. Hence, in the fifth grade there is a significant
difference between the usage of finger counting in children with MD in
complex and simple problems. Abnormal finger counting use is a marker
of MD until adulthood. Hence, late use of finger counting is a marker for
children with MD, but not for children with high MA (Geary et al.,
2004). High MA children have developmental delay, but do not prolong
use of finger counting. Hence, similar to the view of Devine et al. (2018),
we found that MA and MD are dissociable.
To conclude, the usage of differentiated strategies during the solu­
tion of addition problems is characteristic of MA from childhood
through adulthood, and it is expressed mainly during the solution of
hard problems with high WM demands. However, the usage of different
strategies in high MA can show unique developmental trajectories such
as finger counting, and be dissociable from MD.
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen
4.2. The effect of VSWM on MA
The innate preverbal representation of mapping quantities to a
mental number line (Cohen Kadosh et al., 2008; Dehaene, 1992;
Dehaene et al., 2003; Halberda et al., 2008; Halberda & Feigenson,
2008), is the mapping process requiring spatial abilities and specifically
VSWM (Dehaene, 1992; Dehaene et al., 2003). Hence, according to the
cognitive deficit view (Sidney et al., 2018), MA can be based upon
VSWM weakness (Ferguson et al., 2015; Georges et al., 2016; Maloney
et al., 2012). However, the results of the present study do not confirm
the cognitive deficit view (Sidney et al., 2018). First, we found compa­
rable VSWM abilities across high and low MA participants in all the age
groups. Second, we could not find any interaction between the MA
group and VSWM. Hence, our result is in line with Douglas and LeFevre
(2018) who examined the relationship between basic numerical skills,
spatial abilities and MA in adults. According to the results of that study,
spatial weakness in MA could not be the origin of MA or deficits in basic
numerical processing. Instead, the authors suggested that certain con­
ditions may evoke an anxiety response and mask skill proficiency even
for basic numerical tasks.
4.3. The effect of VSWM on advanced strategy use
Here, for the first time, we found a link between individual VSWM
abilities and the usage of advanced strategies. This link was found across
MA levels.
High individual VSWM abilities were associated with higher usage of
advanced strategies. One explanation for the present result is that better
VSWM is associated with superior preverbal number-space association,
which facilitated the acquisition of mature numerical representation
including the usage of advanced strategies. However, an alternative
explanation relates to the usage of general WM resources rather than
VSWM in advanced strategy usage. The present study did not test in­
telligence level or individual working memory subsystems abilities
(except from VSWM), to examine the unique contribution of VSWM to
advanced strategy use. Barrouillet and Lépine (2005) tested correlations
between phonological WM and retrieval rates in second and fourth
graders and found positive correlations (around r = 0.4). Hence, in the
present study, it is not clear whether the relation between the usage of
advanced strategies and VSWM is uniquely different than the relation
between working memory in general and the usage of advanced
strategies.
5. Conclusion and limitation
The present study examined developmental trajectories of strategy
use in high and low MA participants. In typically developing children,
children start with a back- up calculation strategy including finger
counting, and after maturation and experience with this strategy, par­
ticipants shift to memory-based strategy (entitled “advanced strategy” in
the present study). Until the third grade, most of the children rarely use
finger counting, regardless of problem complexity (Geary, 2004). In the
present work, this was not the case for high MA children. High MA
children continued to use finger counting even after their low MA peers
had stopped doing so. In the fifth grade high MA children stopped using
finger counting, hinting at a developmental delay in high MA children
(Geary, 2004). On the contrary, in general and not related to develop­
ment, we found lower usage of advanced strategies in high MA children.
Few notable limitations can be seen in the present study. First, for the
definition of MA, we use explicit measurements of MA rather than im­
plicit MA testing tools. Second, the division of MA participants into high
or low MA was based upon a median split. Median split is arbitrary, and
parts of the study suggest that MA is a continuous measurement. To
overcome this difficulty, we analyzed the data twice, once with MA as a
two group median split in the ANCOVA, and MA and age once as a
continuous variable in the regression analysis. In advanced strategy use,
9
Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293
we found that MA level affected advanced strategy use and is not
modulated by age. Hence, the results are similar whether examining MA
as a continuous or group analysis. However, we could not find any
interaction between age and MA in the continuous analysis of finger
counting. Only in the group analysis we found unique group patterns for
different ages.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sarit Ashkenazi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Vali­
dation Writing - Original Draft.
Nitzan Cohen: Project administration and Writing - Review &
Editing.
Funding
This work was supported by the Marie-Curie- Career-Integration-
Grant [4104824 – VisuoQuant]
Declaration of competing interest
None.
References
Ashcraft, M. H., & Faust, A. (1994). Mathematics anxiety and mental arithmetic
performance: An exploratory investigation. Cognition and Emotion, 8(2), 97–125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939408408931
Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math
anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2),
224–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224
Ashcraft, M. H., & Moore, A. M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in
performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 8.
Ashkenazi, S., & Najjar, D. (2018). Non-adaptive strategy selection in adults with high
mathematical anxiety. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 10744. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-018-27763-w
Barrouillet, P., & Lépine, R. (2005). Working memory and children’s use of retrieval to
solve addition problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91(3), 183–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.03.002
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail:Working memory and
“choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16(2), 101–105. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x
Beilock, S. L., & DeCaro, M. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress:
Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under
pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6),
983.
Carey, E., Hill, F., Devine, A., & Szücs, D. (2016). The chicken or the egg? The direction
of the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1987). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01987
Cohen Kadosh, R., Lammertyn, J., & Izard, V. (2008). Are numbers special? An overview
of chronometric, neuroimaging, developmental and comparative studies of
magnitude representation. Progress in Neurobiology, 84(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.11.001
Daches Cohen, L., & Rubinsten, O. (2017). Mothers, intrinsic math motivation, arithmetic
skills, and math anxiety in elementary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1939).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01939
Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44(1–2), 1–42.
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number
processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02643290244000239
Devine, A., Hill, F., Carey, E., & Szűcs, D. (2018). Cognitive and emotional math
problems largely dissociate: Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia and
mathematics anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 431–444. https://
doi.org/10.1037/edu0000222
Dietrich, J. F., Huber, S., Moeller, K., & Klein, E. (2015). The influence of math anxiety
on symbolic and non-symbolic magnitude processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
1621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01621
Douglas, H.r. P., & LeFevre, J. (2018). Exploring the influence of basic cognitive skills on
the relation between math performance and math anxiety. Journal of Numerical
Cognition, 3(3), 642–666.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336.
Ferguson, M., Maloney, E., Fugelsang, J., & Risko, E. F. (2015). On the relation between
math and spatial ability: The case of math anxiety. Learning and Individual
Differences, 39, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.007
Foley, A. E., Herts, J. B., Borgonovi, F., Guerriero, S., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L.
(2017). The math anxiety-performance link:A global phenomenon. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 26(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416672463
S. Ashkenazi and N. Cohen
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
37(1), 4–15.
Geary, D. C., & Brown, S. C. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy choice and speed-of-
processing differences in gifted, normal, and mathematically disabled children.
Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.27.3.398
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., & Catherine, D., .M. (2004). Strategy choices
in simple and complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting
knowledge for children with mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 88(2), 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.03.002
Georges, C., Hoffmann, D., & Schiltz, C. (2016). How math anxiety relates to
number–space associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1401). https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01401
Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Developmental change in the acuity of the "number
sense": The approximate number system in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds and adults.
Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1457–1465. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012682
Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-
verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455(7213),
665–668. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07246
Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for
research in mathematics education, 33-46.
Hopko, D. R., Mahadevan, R., Bare, R. L., & Hunt, M. K. (2003). The abbreviated math
anxiety scale (AMAS) construction, validity, and reliability. Assessment, 10(2),
178–182.
Imbo, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (2007). The development of strategy use in elementary
school children: Working memory and individual differences. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 96(4), 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.09.001
Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics
and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30
(5), 520.
Maloney, E. A., Ansari, D., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2011). The effect of mathematics anxiety
on the processing of numerical magnitude. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 64(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.533278
Maloney, E. A., Waechter, S., Risko, E. F., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Reducing the sex
difference in math anxiety: The role of spatial processing ability. Learning and
Individual Differences, 22(3), 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.001
Mammarella, I. C., Hill, F., Devine, A., Caviola, S., & Szűcs, D. (2015). Math anxiety and
developmental dyscalculia: A study on working memory processes. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology, 37(8), 878–887.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control. Cambridge University Press.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D.
(2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to
complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1),
49–100.
Mueller, S. T., & Piper, B. J. (2014). The psychology experiment building language
(PEBL) and PEBL test battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 222, 250–259.
10
Acta Psychologica 215 (2021) 103293
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in
decision making. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
14(3), 534.
Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and
mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive
approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(2), 110–122.
Ramirez, G., Chang, H. T., Maloney, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). On the
relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in early elementary
school: The role of problem solving strategies. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 141, 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.014
Si, J., Li, H., Sun, Y., Xu, Y., & Sun, Y. (2016). Age-related differences of individuals’
arithmetic strategy utilization with different level of math anxiety. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 1612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01612
Sidney, P. G., Thalluri, R., Buerke, M. L., & Thompson, C. A. (2018). Who uses more
strategies? Linking mathematics anxiety to adults’ strategy variability and performance
on fraction magnitude tasks. Thinking & Reasoning, 1–38.
Siegler, R. S. (1987). Strategy choice in subtraction. In J. A. Sloboda, & D. Rogers (Eds.),
Cognitive Processes in Mathematics (pp. 81–106). New York: Oxford University Press.
Siegler, R. S., & Robinson, M. (1982). The Development of Numerical
Understandings11This research was supported in part by NICHHD Grant HD-15285
and by a grant from the Spencer Foundation. Thanks are due to Dr. Taylor and the
teachers of the Carnegie-Mellon Children’s School, and to Mrs. Cohen and the
teachers of the Carnegie-Mellon Day Care Center. Also deserving considerable
gratitude are Cindy Zaks who was the experimenter in all of the studies and Vickie
DeRose and Amy Laird who typed more than a reasonable number of drafts of the
manuscript. Finally, a number of colleagues read and commented on earlier versions
of the article: Diane Mierkiewicz, Janellen Huttenlocher, Hayne Reese, and Roman
Taraban. Their help is gratefully acknowledged. In H. W. Reese, & L. P. Lipsitt (Eds.),
Vol. 16. Advances in Child Development and Behavior (pp. 241–312). JAI.
Siegler, R. S., & Taraban, R. (1986). Conditions of applicability of a strategy choice
model. Cognitive Development, 1(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014
(86)80022-3
Siegler, R. S., Adolph, K. E., & Lemaire, P. (1996). Strategy choices across the life span.
Implicit Memory and Metacognition, 79–121.
Suinn, R. M., & Winston, E. H. (2003). The mathematics anxiety rating scale, a brief
version: Psychometric data. Psychological Reports, 92(1), 167–173. https://doi.org/
10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.167
Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquiere, P. (2004). Strategy development in children
with mathematical disabilities: Insights from the choice/no-choice method and the
chronological-age/ability-level—match design. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2),
119–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020301
Vukovic, R. K., Kieffer, M. J., Bailey, S. P., & Harari, R. R. (2013). Mathematics anxiety in
young children: Concurrent and longitudinal associations with mathematical
performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.001
Wu, S. S., Meyer, M. L., Maeda, U., Salimpoor, V., Tomiyama, S., Geary, D. C., &
Menon, V. (2008). Standardized assessment of strategy use and working memory in
early mental arithmetic performance. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3),
365–393.