The main argument of the target article is to show that associative learning is not – as reputedly generally assumed – an “automatic process that is divorced from higher-order cognition.” (sect. 1, para. 1) Instead, it is proposed that human associative learning is based mainly on the acquisition of propositions involving the main two terms of the to-be-learned conjunction, from conditioning or quasi-conditioning paradigms of learning, primarily those that have been frequently characterized as formed by an associative “link.” Assuming that “learning” refers to the acquisition of new knowledge, in this commentary I show (necessarily briefly) that the notion that human associative learning is neither automatic, nor necessarily unconscious, has a venerable, nearly century-old history, missing from the target article. Furthermore, propositional structures constitute just one part of organization theories (see Mandler Reference Mandler2007, for a more extended history).

The opposition to unconscious, automatic associative processes started in modern times with the work of G. E. Müller (e.g., Müller Reference Müller1911) and proceeded rapidly with the development of Gestalt theory. Following the work of Wertheimer (Reference Wertheimer1921), Duncker (Reference Duncker1926), and Katona (Reference Katona1940), the time was ripe for a full-scale assault on the mechanisms of associative memory. The initial arguments were primarily presented by Asch (Reference Asch1962; Reference Asch1969) and Asch and Ebenholtz (Reference Asch and Ebenholtz1962), and generated specific demonstrations of human associative learning by Bower (Reference Bower1970), Bower and Bryant (Reference Bower, Bryant, Kessen, Ortony and Craik1991), Mandler and Mandler (Reference Mandler and Mandler1964), Mandler (Reference Mandler, Dixon and Horton1968; Reference Mandler and Nilsson1979a; Reference Mandler and Puff1979b), and Murdock (Reference Murdock1966). In Mandler (Reference Mandler and Puff1979b), I suggested three possible structures accounting for human associative phenomena: coordination (holistic, unitary organizations), subordination (hierarchical organizations), and pro-ordination (sequential organization). The last is most like the propositional structure proposed in the target article – A followed by B.

Relevant to the target argument, my colleagues and I have tested human associative learning and demonstrated that holistic structures characterize the storage of verbal associations. Mandler et al. (Reference Mandler, Rabinowitz and Simon1981) showed that in verbal human associative learning (sometimes known as paired-associates), “associations” are stored not as “links,” but by combining the two terms in a single holistic unit. Tests of free recall, cued-recall, and recognition supported that conclusion.

Propositions about and tests of organizational theory describe the structure of human semantics – the mental organization of meaningful knowledge and experience. Organization defines the structure of memory. It is obvious that propositional structures depend on retrievals from memory, and, albeit without any detailed discussion of memory, Mitchell et al. too assert the centrality of memorial functions, when in section 3.1 (para. 1) they state that the encoding of an associative hypothesis in memory constitutes learning. Organization theory has generally avoided any distinction between learning and memory. The history of the organizational approach discussed the organization of mental contents, which can be seen as “learned” when established and retrieved once the organizational structure is established. Consistent with such an approach, Mitchell et al. also note that subsequent to a bell-food pairing, a bell can retrieve memories of previous pairings. More generally, it may not be initially obvious which of the possible structures applies to a particular learning experiment or paradigm. At present it is not obvious which experimental or experiential situations give rise to one organization or another. The target article seems to claim that all encodings are propositional; in contrast, we have shown that some are holistic and unitary. Specific experimental procedures and probing and testing procedures need to be developed in order to determine which particular structures eventuate from a specific “learning” situation.

Finally, it does not seem obvious that “we have been heading … towards a propositional approach to all learning” (sect. 7.1, para. 3). The holistic encoding of word pairs or the hierarchical organization of some lists argues against a single model of underlying structures. A general organizational approach has asserted for some time that learning is indeed “not separate from other cognitive processes” (sect. 8, para. 1). Organization theory has made it possible to see the connectedness of these various functions and processes.