Two Forms of Reasoning: Associative and Rule-Based
A rule of thumb to distinguish associative from rule-based reasoning: in associative processing, we are conscious only of the result, not the process; in rule-based, we are aware of both. Evidence from conceptual structure and dual process theories supports this distinction.
THE IDEA
Table 22.1. Characterization of Two Forms of Reasoning
One rule of thumb to help identify the source of an inference has to do with the contents of awareness. When a response is produced solely by the associative system, we are conscious only of the result of the computation, not the process. In contrast, we are aware of both the result and the process in a rule-based computation.
Various sources of evidence support the associative/rule-based distinction. One source is the study of conceptual structure. On one hand, scholars have been aware since the time of Aristotle that our concepts reflect similarity structure (for recent evidence, see Brooks, Norman, & Allen, 1991). Similarity is one of the hallmarks of associative processing. On the other hand, concepts serve analytic ends: they are used by rules to construct explanations. Some theorists argue that psychological concepts have a status analogous to that of scientific concepts (Carey, 1985; Quine, 1977). In support of this claim, experimental evidence makes clear that explanatory principles can guide the way even young children make classifications (Keil, 1989). The strength of the evidence on both sides of this issue suggests that both types of principles are operative in categorization. Indeed, Ashby, Alfonso-Reese, Turken, and Waldron (1998) propose a dual process neuropsychological theory of category learning that parallels the associative/rule-based dichotomy.
Sloman (1996) also discusses simultaneous, contradictory beliefs as evidence relevant to distinguishing forms of thought.
When to use it
Learning new concepts: using associative reasoning to grasp similarity structures and rule-based reasoning to apply analytic criteria.
Decision making under time pressure: associative reasoning allows fast, intuitive judgments, while rule-based is slower but more systematic.
Scientific reasoning: formulating hypotheses often relies on associative pattern recognition, while testing requires rule-based logic.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Awareness of Process vs. Result
The rule of thumb: when you are aware only of the outcome of a judgment but not why you made it, it likely came from associative reasoning. For example, instantly liking or disliking someone without being able to articulate why.
Categorization Approaches
A person may classify a bird as a robin because it resembles familiar robins, or work through an explicit checklist of identifying features. The example distinguishes how the judgment is made; the accuracy of either approach depends on the features and knowledge used.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you recall a time when you made a quick judgment based on similarity and later realized it was incorrect?
How might you become more aware of the reasoning process in your own thinking?
In what situations is rule-based reasoning more reliable than associative reasoning?
Often confused with
References
- Brooks, Norman, & Allen (1991) — Brooks, L. R., Norman, G. R., & Allen, S. W. (1991)
- Carey (1985) — Carey, S. (1985)
- Quine (1977) — Quine, W. V. O. (1977)
- Keil (1989) — Keil, F. C. (1989)
- Ashby, Alfonso-Reese, Turken, & Waldron (1998) — Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, P., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998)
- Sloman (1996) — Sloman, S. A. (1996)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)