In the field of stimulus generalization, an old yet unresolved discussion pertains to what extent stimulus misidentifications contribute to the pattern of conditioned responding. In this article, we perform cluster analysis on six datasets (four published datasets and two unpublished datasets, included N = 950) to examine the relationship between interindividual differences in (a) stimulus identification, (b) patterns of generalized responding, and (c) verbalized generalization rules. The datasets were obtained from online predictive learning tasks where participants learned associations between colored cues and the presence or absence of a hypothetical outcome. In these datasets, stimulus identification and expectancy ratings were assessed in separate phases to a range of colors varying between blue-green. Using cluster analyses on performance during stimulus identification, we identified different subgroups of participants (good vs. bad identifiers). In all six datasets, we found a close relationship between the pattern of stimulus identification and the shape of the expectancy gradient across the test dimension between the identified subgroups. Furthermore, participants classified as good identifiers were more likely to report a similarity generalization rule than a relational or linear rule, suggesting that individual differences in stimulus identification are related to individual differences in generalization rules. These findings suggest that greater consideration should be given to interindividual variability in stimulus identification, inductive rules, and their relationship in explaining patterns of generalized responses.