| Abstract: | The cognitive processes underlying quantitative estimations vary. Past research has identified task-contingent changes between rule-based and exemplar-based processes (P. Juslin, L. Karlsson, & H. Olsson, 2008). B. von Helversen and J. Rieskamp (2008), however, proposed a simple rule-based model—the mapping model—that outperformed the exemplar model in a task thought to promote exemplar-based processing. This raised questions about the assumptions of rule-based versus exemplar-based models that underlie the notion of task contingency of cognitive processes. Rule-based models, such as the mapping model, assume the abstraction of explicit task knowledge. In contrast, exemplar models should profit if storage and activation of the exemplars is facilitated. Two studies tested the importance of the two models’ assumptions. When knowledge about cues existed, the rule-based mapping model predicted quantitative estimations best. In contrast, when knowledge about the cues was difficult to gain, participants’ estimations were best described by an exemplar model. The results emphasize the task contingency of cognitive processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
