How do we tell an association from a rule? Comment on Sloman (1996).

Abstract

A. Sloman's (1996) intriguing argument for separate associative and rule-based reasoning systems is unfortunately damaged by a certain amount of slack in the distinction he makes between these two posited mental mechanisms.The authors suggest that the distinction could be sharpened by overt reference to explicit models of associative and rule-based processing.They also point out that "simultaneous contradictory belief," which Sloman takes as evidence for separate associative and rule-based systems, need not be interpreted in this fashion.It may also signal a number of other things, including the presence of linguistic ambiguity (as in the Linda problem), competing lines of formal reasoning (as in the Wason selection task), and unclarined assumptions (as in the 3 doors problem).

Cites (3)

1. The Organization of Behavior
   Hebb, D.O. · 2005
2. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
   Schneider, Walter, Shiffrin, Richard M. · 1977 · Psychological Review
3. YOU CAN'T PLAY 20 QUESTIONS WITH NATURE AND WIN: PROJECTIVE COMMENTS ON THE PAPERS OF THIS SYMPOSIUM
   Newell, Allen · 1973 · Visual Information Processing

Show all 3 references

Cited by (9)

1. Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
   Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., Stanovich, Keith E. · 2013 · Perspectives on Psychological Science
2. Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences
   Gigerenzer, Gerd, Brighton, Henry · 2009 · Topics in Cognitive Science
3. Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy
   Reyna, Valerie F., Farley, Frank · 2006 · Psychological Science in the Public Interest
4. Intuition and Reasoning: A Dual-Process Perspective
   Evans, Jonathan St B T · 2010 · Psychological Inquiry
5. Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking
   De Neys, Wim, Glumicic, Tamara · 2008 · Cognition

See all 236