The rules versus similarity distinction. Pothos, E. M Behav Brain Sci, 28(1):1-14; discussion 14-49, 2005.
abstract   bibtex   
The distinction between rules and similarity is central to our understanding of much of cognitive psychology. Two aspects of existing research have motivated the present work. First, in different cognitive psychology areas we typically see different conceptions of rules and similarity; for example, rules in language appear to be of a different kind compared to rules in categorization. Second, rules processes are typically modeled as separate from similarity ones; for example, in a learning experiment, rules and similarity influences would be described on the basis of separate models. In the present article, I assume that the rules versus similarity distinction can be understood in the same way in learning, reasoning, categorization, and language, and that a unified model for rules and similarity is appropriate. A rules process is considered to be a similarity one where only a single or a small subset of an object's properties are involved. Hence, rules and overall similarity operations are extremes in a single continuum of similarity operations. It is argued that this viewpoint allows adequate coverage of theory and empirical findings in learning, reasoning, categorization, and language, and also a reassessment of the objectives in research on rules versus similarity.
@Article{Pothos2005,
  author   = {Emmanuel M Pothos},
  journal  = {Behav Brain Sci},
  title    = {The rules versus similarity distinction.},
  year     = {2005},
  number   = {1},
  pages    = {1-14; discussion 14-49},
  volume   = {28},
  abstract = {The distinction between rules and similarity is central to our understanding
	of much of cognitive psychology. Two aspects of existing research
	have motivated the present work. First, in different cognitive psychology
	areas we typically see different conceptions of rules and similarity;
	for example, rules in language appear to be of a different kind compared
	to rules in categorization. Second, rules processes are typically
	modeled as separate from similarity ones; for example, in a learning
	experiment, rules and similarity influences would be described on
	the basis of separate models. In the present article, I assume that
	the rules versus similarity distinction can be understood in the
	same way in learning, reasoning, categorization, and language, and
	that a unified model for rules and similarity is appropriate. A rules
	process is considered to be a similarity one where only a single
	or a small subset of an object's properties are involved. Hence,
	rules and overall similarity operations are extremes in a single
	continuum of similarity operations. It is argued that this viewpoint
	allows adequate coverage of theory and empirical findings in learning,
	reasoning, categorization, and language, and also a reassessment
	of the objectives in research on rules versus similarity.},
  keywords = {Animals, Association Learning, Cognition, Cognitive Science, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Generalization (Psychology), Humans, Non-U.S. Gov't, Problem Solving, Problem-Based Learning, Psychological Theory, Research Support, 16047456},
}

Downloads: 0