Abstract
Theories of adult reasoning propose that reasoning consists of two functionally distinct systems that operate under entirely different mechanisms. This theoretical framework has been used to account for a wide range of phenomena, which now encompasses developmental research on reasoning and problem solving. We begin this review by contrasting three main dual-system theories of adult reasoning (Evans & Over, 1996; Sloman, 1996; Stanovich & West, 2000) with a well-established developmental account that also incorporates a dual-system framework (Brainerd & Reyna, 2001). We use developmental studies of the formation and application of intuitive rules in science and mathematics to evaluate the claims that these theories make. Overall, the evidence reviewed suggests that what is crucial to understanding how children reason is the saliency of the features that are presented within a task. By highlighting the importance of saliency as a way of understanding reasoning, we aim to provide clarity concerning the benefits and limitations of adopting a dual-system framework to account for evidence from developmental studies of intuitive reasoning.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adey, P., Shayer, M., &Yates, C. (2001).Thinking science: The materials of the CASE project (3rd ed.). Cheltenham, U.K.: Nelson Thornes.
Ahl, V. A., Moore, C. F., &Dixon, J. A. (1992). Development of intuitive and numerical proportional reasoning.Cognitive Development,7, 81–108.
Anderson, J. R. (1993).Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, N. H. (1987). Function knowledge: Comment on Reed and Evans.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 297–299.
Azhari, N. (1998).Using the intuitive rule “same of A, same of B” in conservation tasks. Unpublished manuscript, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Babai, R., & Alon, T. (2004).Intuitive thinking, cognitive level or grade level: What predicts students ’ incorrect responses in science and mathematics. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference, Vancouver.
Babai, R., Brecher, T., Stavy, R., &Tiosh, D. (2006). Intuitive interference in probabilistic reasoning.Internationaljournal of Science & Mathematics Education,4, 627–639.
Babai, R., Levyadun, T., Stavy, R., &Tirosh, D. (2006). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: A reaction time study.International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology,37, 913–924.
Bedard, A. C., Nichols, S., Barbosa, J. A., Schachar, R., Logan, G. D., &Tannock, R. (2002). The development of selective inhibitory control across the life span.Developmental Neuropsychology,21, 93–111.
Brainerd, C. J. (2004). Dropping the other U: An alternative approach to U-shaped developmental functions.Journal of Cognition & Development,5, 81–88.
Brainerd, C. J., &Reyna, V. F. (1990). Inclusion illusions: Fuzzytrace theory and perceptual salience effects in cognitive development.Developmental Review,10, 365–403.
Brainerd, C. J., &Reyna, V. F. (1992). Explaining “memory free” reasoning.Psychological Science,3, 332–339.
Brainerd, C. J., &Reyna, V. F. (1993). Memory independence and memory interference in cognitive development.Psychological Review,100, 42–67.
Brainerd, C. J., &Reyna, V. F. (2001). Fuzzy-trace theory: Dual processes in memory, reasoning, and cognitive neuroscience.Advances in Child Development & Behavior,28, 41–100.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., &Kneer, R. (1995). False-recognition reversal: When similarity is distinctive.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 157–185.
Brecher, T. (2005).Application of the intuitive rule: “MoreA-more B” in probability task A reaction time study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel (in Hebrew).
Bruner, J. S. (1966). On the conservation of liquids. In J. S. Bruner, R. R. Olver, & P. M. Greenfield (Eds.),Studies in cognitive growth (pp. 183–207). New York: Wiley.
Bryant, P. (1974).Perception and understanding in young children: An experimental approach. London: Methuen.
Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., &Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,3, 21–29.
Cashon, C. H., &Cohen, L. B. (2004). Beyond U-shaped development in infants’ processing of faces: An information-processing account.Cognition & Development,5, 59–80.
Cave, K. R., &Wolfe, J. M. (1990). Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search.Cognitive Psychology,22, 225–271.
Ceci, S. J., &Liker, J. K. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 255–266.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., &Anderson, J. H. (1979).Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
Cleeremans, A., &Jiménez, L. (2002). Implicit learning and consciousness: A graded, dynamic perspective. In R. M. French & A. Cleeremans (Eds.),Implicit learning and consciousness: An empirical, philosophical and computational consensus in the making (pp. 1–40). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30, 1241–1257.
Crowley, K., &Siegler, R. S. (1999). Explanation and generalization in young children’s strategy learning.Child Development,70, 304–316.
Davidson, D. (1995). The representativeness heuristic and the conjunctive fallacy in children’s decision making.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,41, 328–346.
Deglin, V. L., &Kinsbourne, M. (1996). Divergent thinking styles of the hemispheres: How syllogisms are solved during transitory hemisphere suppression.Brain & Cognition,31, 285–307.
Dembo, Y., Levin, I., &Siegler, R. S. (1997). A comparison of the geometric reasoning of students attending Israeli ultraothodox and mainstream schools.Developmental Psychology,33, 92–103.
Diamond, A., Kirkham, N., &Amso, D. (2002). Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response.Developmental Psychology,38, 352–362.
Dixon, J. A., &Dohn, M. C. (2003). Redescription disembeds relations: Evidence from relational transfer and use in problem solving.Memory & Cognition,31, 1082–1093.
Dixon, J. A., &Moore, C. F. (1996). The developmental role of intuitive principles in choosing mathematical strategies.Developmental Psychology,32, 241–253.
Dixon, J. A., &Moore, C. F. (1997). Characterizing the intuitive representation in problem solving: Evidence from evaluating mathematical strategies.Memory & Cognition,25, 395–412.
Dosher, B. A. (1984). Discriminating preexperimental (semantic) from learned (episodic) associations: A speed-accuracy study.Cognitive Psychology,16, 519–555.
Dosher, B. A., &Rosedale, G. (1991). Judgments of semantic and episodic relatedness: Common time-course and failure of segregation.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 125–160.
Evans, J. S. B. T., &Over, D. E. (1996).Rationality and reasoning. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Evans, J. S. B. T., &Over, D. E. (2004).If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Falk, R., Falk, R., &Levin, I. (1980). A potential for learning probability in young children.Educational Studies in Mathematics,11, 181–204.
Fischbein, E. (1987).Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Fischbein, E., &Schnarch, D. (1997). The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,28, 96–105.
Freud, S. (1953). The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.),The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 4 and 5). London: Hogarth. (Original work published 1900)
Gilinsky, A. S., &Judd, B. B. (1994). Working memory and bias in reasoning across the life span.Psychology & Aging,9, 356–371.
Green, D. R. (1983). A survey of probability concepts in 3000 pupils aged 11–16 years. In D. R. Grey, P. Hohnes, V. Barnett, & G. M. Constable (Eds.),Proceedings of the First International Conference on Teaching Statistics (pp. 766–783). Sheffield, U.K.: Teaching Statistics Trust.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966).Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.
Gunstone, R. F., &White, R. T. (1981). Understanding of gravity.Science Education,65, 291–299.
Handley, S. J., Capon, A., Beveridge, M., Dennis, I., &Evans, J. S. B. T. (2004). Working memory, inhibitory control and the development of children’s reasoning.Thinking & Reasoning,10, 175–195.
James, W. (1950).The principles of psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1890)
Kail, R., &Salthouse, T. A. (1994). Processing speed as a mental capacity.Acta Psychologica,86, 199–225.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). From meta-processes to conscious access: Evidence from children’s metalinguistic and repair data.Cognition,23, 95–147.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992).Beyond modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1994). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,17, 693–745.
Kim, M.-S., &Cave, K. R. (1999). Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: On the nature of interference from a salient distractor.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 1009–1023.
Klaczynski, P. A. (2001). Analytical and heuristic processing influences on adolescent reasoning and decision making.Child Development,72, 844–861.
Klaczynski, P. A., &Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases.Psychology & Aging,15, 400–416.
Kokis, J. V., Macpherson, R., Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., &Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,83, 26–52.
Lamy, D., Leber, A., &Egeth, H. E. (2004). Effects of task relevance and stimulus-driven salience in feature-search mode.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,30, 1019–1031.
Livne, T. (1996).Examination of high school students’ difficulties in understanding the change in surface area, volume and surface area/volume ratio with the change in size and/or shape of a body. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Lleras, A., &Von Mühlenen, A. (2004). Spatial context and top-down strategies in visual search.Spatial Vision,17, 465–482.
Mendel, N. (1998).77ie intuitive rule “same of A, same of B ”: The case of comparison of rectangles. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel (in Hebrew).
Moshman, D. (2004). From inference to reasoning: The construction of rationality.Thinking & Reasoning,10, 221–239.
Napolitano, A. C., &Sloutsky, V. M. (2004). Is a picture worth a thousand words? The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children.Child Development,75, 1850–1870.
Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,11, 988–1010.
Piaget, J., &Inhelder, B. (1974).The construction of quantity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., &Szeminska, A. (1960).The child’s conception of geometry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pratto, F., &John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,61, 380–391.
Reingold, E. M., &Stampe, D. M. (2004). Saccadic inhibition in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,30, 194–211.
Reyna, V. F. (1996). Conceptions of memory development, with implications for reasoning and decision making.Annals of Child Development,12, 87–118.
Reyna, V. F., &Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis.Learning & Individual Differences,7, 1–75.
Reyna, V. F., &Ellis, S. C. (1994). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in children’s risky decision making.Psychological Science,5, 275–279.
Rothermund, K., &Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 139–165.
Seaman, J. G., Luo, C. R., Schwartz, M. A., Jones, K. J., Lee, D. M., &Jones, S. J. (2002). Reception can have similar or different effects on accurate and false recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,46, 323–340.
Sherry, D. F., &Schacter, D. L. (1987). The evolution of multiple memory systems.Psychological Review,94, 439–454.
Siegler, R. S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development.Cognitive Psychology,8, 481–520.
Siegler, R. S. (1999). Strategic development.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,3, 430–435.
Siegler, R. S. (2004). Learning about learning.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,50, 353–368.
Siegler, R. S., &Jenkins, E. (1989).How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Siegler, R. S., &Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 377–397.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,119, 3–22.
Sloman, S. A. (2002). Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.),Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 379–398). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sloutsky, V. M., &Fisher, A. V. (2004). When development and learning decrease memory: Evidence against category-based induction in children.Psychological Science,15, 553–558.
Sobel, K. V., &Cave, K. R. (2002). Roles of salience and strategy in conjunction search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 1055–1070.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999).Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E. (2004).The robot’s rebellion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stanovich, K. E., &West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 645–665.
Stavy, R. (1981). Teaching the inverse function via the concentration of salt water solution.Archives de Psychologie,49, 267–287.
Stavy, R. (1991). Using analogy to overcome misconceptions of conservation of matter.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28, 305–313.
Stavy, R. (2006).Informational conflict in proportional reasoning. Manuscript in preparation.
Stavy, R., &Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature.Science Education,64, 679–692.
Stavy, R., Goel, V., Critchley, H., &Dolan, R. (2006). Intuitive interference in quantitative reasoning.Brain Research,107–1074, 383–388.
Stavy, R., &Stachel, D. (1985). Children’s conception of changes in the state of matter: From solid to liquid.Archives de Psychologie,53, 331–344.
Stavy, R., &Tirosh, D. (1993). When analogy is perceived as such.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30, 1229–1239.
Stavy, R., &Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of “more of A more of B.”International Journal of Science Education,18, 653–667.
Stavy, R., &Tirosh, D. (2000).How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York: Teachers College Press.
Strauss, S., &Stavy, R. (1982). U-shaped behavioural growth: Implications for theories of development. In W. W. Hartup (Ed.),Review of child development research (Vol. 6, pp. 547–599). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, S., Stavy, R., Orpaz, N., &Carmi, G. G. (1982). U-shaped behavioral growth in ratio comparisons, or That’s funny I would not have thought you were U-ish. In S. Strauss & R. Stavy (Eds.),U-shaped behavioral growth (pp. 11–36), New York: Academic Press.
Tirosh, D., &Stavy, R. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of “everything dan be divided by two.”International Journal of Science Education,18, 669–683.
Tirosh, D., &Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: A way to explain and predict students’ reasoning.Education Studies in Mathematics,38, 51–66.
Tirosh, D., &Tsamir, P. (1996). The role of representations in students’ intuitive thinking about infinity.International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology,27, 33–40.
Treisman, A. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B,353, 1295–1306.
Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., &Stavy, R. (1998). Do equilateral polygons have equal angles? In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.),Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 137–144). Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness.Cognitive Psychology,3, 430–454.
Wentura, D. (2000). Dissociative affective and associative priming effects in the lexical decision task:Yes versusno responses to word targets reveal evaluative judgment tendencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 456–469.
Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., &Bak, P. (2000). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,78, 1024–1037.
Winer, G. A., Craig, R. K., &Weinbaum, E. (1992). Adults’ failure on misleading weight-conservation tests: A developmental analysis.Developmental Psychology,28, 109–120.
Winer, G. A., &McGlone, C. (1993). On the uncertainty of conservation: Responses to misleading conservation questions.Developmental Psychology,29, 760–769.
Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Asymmetries in visual search: An introduction.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 381–389.
Wolfe, J. M. (2003). Moving towards solutions to some enduring controversies in visual search.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 70–76.
Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., &Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model of visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 419–433.
Yair, Y., &Yair, Y. (2004). “Everything comes to an end”: An intuitive rule in physics and mathematics.Science Education,88, 594–609.
Zazkis, R. (1999). Intuitive rules in number theory: Example of “the more of A, the more of B” rule implementation.Educational Studies in Mathematics,40, 197–209.
Zazkis, R., &Campbell, S. (1996a). Divisibility and multiplicative structure of natural numbers: Preservice teachers’ understanding.Journal of Research in Mathematics Education,27, 540–563.
Zazkis, R., &Campbell, S. (1996b). Prime decomposition: Understanding uniqueness.Journal of Mathematical Behavior,15, 207–218.
Zietsman, A., &Clement, J. (1997). The role of extreme case reasoning in instruction for conceptual change.Journal of Learning Sciences,6, 61–89.
Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., Chappelow, J. C., &Berns, G. S. (2004). Human striatal responses to monetary reward depend on saliency.Neuron,42, 509–517.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this article was supported by ESRC Grant RES-000-27-0119 and the ESRC Research Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Osman, M., Stavy, R. Development of intuitive rules: Evaluating the application of the dual-system framework to understanding children’s intuitive reasoning. Psychon Bull Rev 13, 935–953 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213907
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213907