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
{"_id":"d8kwnqCkB9bh2ZviP","bibbaseid":"pothos-therulesversussimilaritydistinction-2005","author_short":["Pothos, E. M"],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["Emmanuel","M"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Pothos"],"suffixes":[]}],"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","bibtex":"@Article{Pothos2005,\n author = {Emmanuel M Pothos},\n journal = {Behav Brain Sci},\n title = {The rules versus similarity distinction.},\n year = {2005},\n number = {1},\n pages = {1-14; discussion 14-49},\n volume = {28},\n abstract = {The distinction between rules and similarity is central to our understanding\n\tof much of cognitive psychology. Two aspects of existing research\n\thave motivated the present work. First, in different cognitive psychology\n\tareas we typically see different conceptions of rules and similarity;\n\tfor example, rules in language appear to be of a different kind compared\n\tto rules in categorization. Second, rules processes are typically\n\tmodeled as separate from similarity ones; for example, in a learning\n\texperiment, rules and similarity influences would be described on\n\tthe basis of separate models. In the present article, I assume that\n\tthe rules versus similarity distinction can be understood in the\n\tsame way in learning, reasoning, categorization, and language, and\n\tthat a unified model for rules and similarity is appropriate. A rules\n\tprocess is considered to be a similarity one where only a single\n\tor a small subset of an object's properties are involved. Hence,\n\trules and overall similarity operations are extremes in a single\n\tcontinuum of similarity operations. It is argued that this viewpoint\n\tallows adequate coverage of theory and empirical findings in learning,\n\treasoning, categorization, and language, and also a reassessment\n\tof the objectives in research on rules versus similarity.},\n 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},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Pothos, E. M"],"key":"Pothos2005","id":"Pothos2005","bibbaseid":"pothos-therulesversussimilaritydistinction-2005","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["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"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","dataSources":["xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE","TXa55dQbNoWnaGmMq"],"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"],"search_terms":["rules","versus","similarity","distinction","pothos"],"title":"The rules versus similarity distinction.","year":2005}