Skill and Automaticity: Relations, Implications, and Future Directions

Automaticity and skill are closely related but are not identical. Automatic processes are components of skill, but skill is more than the sum of the automatic components. Automaticity and skill are similar in that both are learned through practice; this has implications for (1) current studies of the co-occurrence of properties of automaticity, (2) the relation between multiple resources and automaticity, and (3) the relation between control and automaticity. Many of the issues in automaticity may be resolved or at least revised by considering the role that automatic processes play in performing a skill. RESUME L'automatismeet l'habiletesont relies mais non identiques. Les processus automatiques sont les composantes d'une habilite, mais celle-ci est plus que la somme de ses composantes automatiques. L'automatisme et l'habilete sont similaires en ce sens qu'ils sont tous deux appris par la pratique. Ceci a des implications sur (1) les etudes actuelles sur la co-occurrence des proprietes de Tautomatisme, (2) la relation entre les ressources multiples et l'automatisme et (3) la relation entre le controle et l'automatisme. Plusieurs des questions portant sur l'automatisme pourraient trouver leur reponse ou du moins etre reformulees par l'examen du role que jouent les processus automatiques dans l'exercice d'une habilete. Psychologists have believed there is a strong relation between automaticity and skill since the last century. Bryan and Harter (1899) argued that automaticity was a necessary component of skill, that higher-level aspects of skill could not be acquired until lower level aspects had become automatized. LaBerge and Samuels (1974) echoed Bryan and Hatter's position, arguing that there was not enough attentional capacity to consider higher-level aspects of skill until lower-level aspects had become automatized, thereby freeing attentional capacity for the higher-level aspects. Other researchers may not accept the idea that attentional capacity limits the acquisition of skill (e.g., Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976) or that automatization should be defined as a reduction in capacity demands (e.g., Kolers, 1975), but most would agree that automatization is an important aspect of skill. The close relation between automaticity and skill raises several questions: Are automaticity and skill the same thing? Is there anything to skill besides automaticity? What does a skills perspective imply for studies of automaticity? The purpose of this article is to suggest possible answers to these questions. * This research was supported by Grant No. U0053 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Address reprint requests to Gordon D. Logan, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907, U.S.A.