ArticlePsychological research2026
The role of automatization in complex inductive reasoning: evidence from three experiments.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Regulating Memory Use: Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity in Natural Tasks.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41677967What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.