Abstract
Two experiments tested the hypothesis that a non-strategic mode of rule learning results in atomic representations. In each case subjects were taught concepts under two different conditions, designed to favour either non-strategic or strategic learning. Following training, subjects demonstrated an equivalent ability to discriminate exemplars from non-exemplars of the concepts acquired under each of these two learning conditions. However, performance on a decompositional inference task, which required access to critical constituent elements within the rule representations, was disproportionately poor for a concept acquired under the training condition that favoured non-strategic learning. These findings lend support to the view that rule acquisition can be mediated by either of two modes of learning, and that the format of knowledge representations is not equivalent across these two learning modes.