Abstract
Two basic approaches to explaining the nature of the mind are the rational and the mechanistic approaches. Rational analyses attempt to characterize the environment and the behavioral outcomes that humans seek to optimize, whereas mechanistic models attempt to simulate human behavior using processes and representations analogous to those used by humans. We compared these approaches with regard to their accounts of how humans learn the variability of categories. The mechanistic model departs in subtle ways from rational principles. In particular, the mechanistic model incrementally updates its estimates of category means and variances through error-driven learning, based on discrepancies between new category members and the current representation of each category. The model yields a prediction, which we verify, regarding the effects of order manipulations that the rational approach does not anticipate. Although both rational and mechanistic models can successfully postdict known findings, we suggest that psychological advances are driven primarily by consideration of process and representation and that rational accounts trail these breakthroughs.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R. (1991a). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98, 409–429.
Anderson, J. R. (1991b). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 14, 471–484.
Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (1999). Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 57–65.
Chater, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Yuille, A. (2006). Probabilistic models of cognition: Where next? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 292–293.
Clapper, J. P. (2006). When more is less: Negative exposure effects in unsupervised learning. Memory & Cognition, 34, 890–902.
Cohen, A. L., Nosofsky, R. M., & Zaki, S. R. (2001). Category variability, exemplar similarity, and perceptual classification. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1165–1175.
Elliott, S. W., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). Effect of memory decay on predictions from changing categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 815–836.
Feldman, J. (2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature, 407, 630–633.
Fried, L. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1984). Induction of category distributions: A framework for classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 234–257.
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 59–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science, 17, 767–773.
Hahn, U., Bailey, T. M., & Elvin, L. B. C. (2005). Effects of category diversity on learning, memory, and generalization. Memory & Cognition, 33, 289–302.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.
Love, B. C., & Jones, M. (2006). The emergence of multiple learning systems. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 507–512). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of human category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309–332.
Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1998). Selective attention and the formation of linear decision boundaries: Comment on McKinley and Nosofsky (1996). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 301–321.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
Medin, D. L., & Bettger, J. G. (1994). Presentation order and recognition of categorically related examples. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 250–254.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Ruleplus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53–79.
Ono, H. (1967). Difference threshold for stimulus length under simultaneous and nonsimultaneous viewing conditions. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 201–207.
Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 382–407.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21–59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rodrigues, P. M., & Murre, J. M. J. (2007). Rules-plus-exception tasks: A problem for exemplar models? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 640–646.
Sakamoto, Y., Matsuka, T., & Love, B. C. (2004). Dimension-wide vs. exemplar-specific attention in category learning and recognition. In M. Lovett, C. Schunn, C. Lebiere, & P. Munro (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Cognitive Modeling (pp. 261–266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity and Bayesian inference. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 629–640.
Townsend, J. T. (1974). Issues and models concerning the processing of a finite number of inputs. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 133–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zaki, S. R., & Homa, D. (1999). Concepts and transformational knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 69–115.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by Grants AFOSR FA9550-04-1-0226 and NSF CAREER 0349101 to B.C.L. and by Grant NIMH NRSA F32-MH068965 to M.J.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sakamoto, Y., Jones, M. & Love, B.C. Putting the psychology back into psychological models: Mechanistic versus rational approaches. Memory & Cognition 36, 1057–1065 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1057
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1057