The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.

Steven A. Sloman·1996·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Distinctions have been proposed between systems of reasoning for centuries. This article distills properties shared by many of these distinctions and characterizes the resulting systems in light of recent findings and theoretical developments. One system is associative because its computations reflect similarity structure and relations of temporal contiguity. The other is "rule based" because it operates on symbolic structures that have logical content and variables and because its computations have the properties that are normally assigned to rules. The systems serve complementary functions and can simultaneously generate different solutions to a reasoning problem. The rule-based system can suppress the associative system but not completely inhibit it. The article reviews evidence in favor of the distinction and its characterization.

Cites (8)

  1. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
    Tversky, Amos, Kahneman, Daniel · 1975 · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making
  2. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
    Nisbett, Richard E., Wilson, Timothy D. · 1977 · Psychological Review
  3. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory
    Shiffrin, Richard M., Schneider, Walter · 1977 · Psychological Review
  4. Neurons with graded response have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons.
    Hopfield, J J · 1984 · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  5. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
    Schneider, Walter, Shiffrin, Richard M. · 1977 · Psychological Review
  6. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis
    Fodor, Jerry A., Pylyshyn, Zenon W. · 1988 · Cognition
  7. Toward an instance theory of automatization.
    Logan, Gordon D. · 1988 · Psychological Review
  8. Pragmatic reasoning schemas
    Cheng, Patricia W, Holyoak, Keith J · 1985 · Cognitive Psychology

Show all 8 references

Cited by (157)

  1. The weirdest people in the world?
    Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J., Norenzayan, Ara · 2010 · Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  2. Risk as feelings.
    Loewenstein, George F., Weber, Elke U., Hsee, Christopher K., Welch, Ned · 2001 · Psychological Bulletin
  3. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
    Kahneman, Daniel · 2003 · American Psychologist
  4. Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making
    Frederick, Shane · 2005 · Journal of Economic Perspectives
  5. Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
    Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. · 2008 · Annual Review of Psychology

See all 3,848

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037//0033-2909.119.1.3
The paper
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.119.1.3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.