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. One of the oldest conundrums in psychology is whether people are best conceived as parallel processors of information who operate along diffuse associative links or as analysts who operate by deliberate and sequential manipulation of internal representations. Are inferences drawn through a network of learned associative pathways or through application of a kind of "psychologic"

The authors examined inductive reasoning among experts in a domain. Three types of tree experts (landscapers, taxonomists, and parks maintenance personnel) completed 3 reasoning tasks. In Experi-ment 1, participants inferred which of 2 novel diseases would affect "more other kinds of trees " and provided justifications for their choices. In Experiment 2, the authors used modified instructions and asked which disease would be more likely to affect "all trees. " In Experiment 3, the conclusion category was eliminated altogether, and participants were asked to generate a list of other affected trees. Among these populations, typicality and diversity effects were weak to nonexistent. Instead, experts ' reasoning was influenced by "local " coverage (extension of the property to members of the same folk family) and causal-ecological factors. The authors concluded that domain knowledge leads to the use of a variety of reasoning strategies not captured by current models of category-based induction. Cognitive psychologists are increasingly interested in concep-tual functions beyond categorization (e.g., Barsalou & Hale, 1992; Markman, Yamauchi, & Makin, 1997; Pazzani, 1991; Ross, 1996, 1997; Wisniewski, 1995). Particularly, they have focused on the use of categories in reasoning and have proposed a number of formal models of category-based reasoning (e.g., Heit, 1998; Mc-

Abstract not found

ositive side, though, the second person might have some advantage over the first person in learning how to shift gears, because the second person would not have to overcome negative transfer from experience with automatic transmissions. As another example, imagine that you are an explorer visiting a remote island, with the purpose of writing a book about the people that you see there. You bring to this island many forms of prior knowledge that will guide you in learning about these new people. For example, based on your experiences in other places, you would expect to see males and females, younger and older people, shy people and arrogant people. You would also have certain hypotheses at a more abstract level, for example, that the clothes that someone wears may be related to the person's age and gender. (Goodman, 1955, referred to such abstract hypotheses as overhypotheses.) In a way, these biases due to previous knowledge might seem to be undesirable. After all, wouldn't be it be be

this paper is to show that the category inclusion principle has only limited descriptive validity

Several theories have been proposed regarding how causal relations among features of objects affect how those objects are classified. The assumptions of these theories were tested in 3 experiments that manipulated the causal knowledge associated with novel categories. There were 3 results. The 1st was a multiple cause effect in which a feature’s importance increases with its number of causes. The 2nd was a coherence effect in which good category members are those whose features jointly corroborate the category’s causal knowledge. These 2 effects can be accounted for by assuming that good category members are those likely to be generated by a category’s causal laws. The 3rd result was a primary cause effect, in which primary causes are more important to category membership. This effect can also be explained by a generative account with an additional assumption: that categories often are perceived to have hidden generative causes.

Abstract not found

www.elsevier.com/locate/cogpsych

A feature is central to a concept to the extent that other features depend on it. Four studies tested the hypothesis that people will project a feature from a base concept to a target concept to the extent that they believe the feature is central to the two concepts. This centrality hypothesis implies that feature projection is guided by a principle that aims to maximize the structural commonality between base and target concepts. Participants were told that a category has two or three novel features. One feature was the most central in that more properties depended on it. The extent to which the target shared the feature's dependencies was manipulated by varying the similarity of category pairs. Participants' ratings of the likelihood that each feature would hold in the target category support the centrality hypothesis with both natural kind and artifact categories and with both well-specified and vague dependency structures.

A central question in cognitive research concerns how new properties are generalized to categories. This article introduces a model of how generalizations involve a process of causal inference in which people estimate the likely presence of the new property in individual category exemplars and then the prevalence of the property among all category members. Evidence in favor of this causalbased generalization (CBG) view included effects of an existing feature’s base rate (Experiment 1), the direction of the causal relations (Experiments 2 and 4), the number of those relations (Experiment 3), and the distribution of features among category members (Experiments 4 and 5). The results provided no support for an alternative view that generalizations are promoted by the centrality of the to-be-generalized feature. However, there was evidence that a minority of participants based their judgments on simpler associative reasoning processes. Keywords: Causal-based induction; Generalization; Causal reasoning 1.