Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41677967›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2026

The role of automatization in complex inductive reasoning: evidence from three experiments.

Rosa Angela Fabio, Giulia Picciotto, Rossella Suriano

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rosa Angela FabioDepartment of Biomedical, Morphological and Functional Imaging Sciences, University of Messina, Messina, 98100, Italy.
Giulia PicciottoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, 98100, Italy. giulia.picciotto@hotmail.com.
Rossella SurianoDepartment of Cognitive, Psychological and Pedagogical Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Messina, Messina, 98100, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automaticity plays a central role in facilitating higher-order cognitive processes by reducing demands on working memory. Across three experiments, we examined how the quality and stability of automatized knowledge affect performance in complex inductive reasoning tasks. Participants learned arbitrary symbol–meaning associations until they met predefined accuracy and speed criteria. Experiment 1 showed that, once automatization was achieved, individual differences in learning trajectories (e.g., number of trials or errors) no longer predicted performance in a symbol-based reasoning task. Experiment 2 demonstrated the durability of automatization, as performance on a complex symbol recombination task remained stable after a 30-day interval. Experiment 3 contrasted participants who learned symbol meanings accurately but without speed (non-automatized group) with those who reached both accuracy and speed thresholds (automatized group). Only the automatized group showed superior reasoning performance, particularly under increasing task complexity. These findings provide converging evidence that automatized access to learned knowledge—defined by both accuracy and speed—is essential for efficient complex reasoning, and highlight the cognitive cost of non-automatized retrieval even when accuracy is high.

Indexed as

LearningProblem SolvingThinkingAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAutomaticityCognitive efficiencyControlled processingInductive reasoningKnowledge retrievalSymbolic learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.