7 Flashcards
(50 cards)
what is knowledge defined in memory terms
semantic memory. the organization of knowledge is the structure of semantic memory
most of what we know is what type of memory
semantic
category
external grouping of objects that belong together and have something in common. perceptually, biologically, or functionally similar
concept
internal grouping that depends on how you assign and also what’s happning externally. you make assignments based on what is useful (i.e. all cars are one concept to me but foam tip and brush tip eyeliners are not. fuck foam tip fr). if you are given a category, you interalize so it technically immediately becomes a concept
exemplar
an item in a category. exchagable with little consequences. such as porcelain to paper cup.
why are categories useful
it allows us to predict what is likely in new situations because they treat all exemplars as similar
classical view of categorization
categories are defined by a list of necessary (items must have defining features) and sufficient (any other attributes not needed) features
why is the classical view of categorization ass
because you can lose many characteristics and an object will still be in a group. not all categories have defining features (but then again maybe we just suck at listing the defining features). some items are more typical examles of a category than others, leading to typicality effects.
how are typical exemplars different from nontypical ones
typical exemplars: 1. are responded to faster (put into categories faster)
2. generated more frequently
3. can be used to prime atypical items (but this cannot be reversed)
4. show typicality effects that begin early in life
5. tend to be named first
prototype theory, how is it different from classical categorization
categories are fuzzy (graded; tomatoes can be fruit or veg). have a set of characteristic (likely but not required) features rather than defining features. things are matched by matching item with prototype stored in memory
central tendency
categories have a central tendency where exemplars with the most characteristic features are found (basically most average exemplar)
family resemblance
something all category members have even if they are not typical members. says that for one to be part of a category, it must share at least one feature with at least one other member
prototype
average of all category members. most typical member of a category. doesn’t have to exist. mental representation
issues with prototype theory
typicality depends on context. for birds: robins are common in north america but sparrows are common in china. conflicts with theory that typicality depends only on number of shared features.
exemplar theory
we store specific exemplars and can create a protoype if necessary. if it is similar to other existing category members and not with other categories, then it counts.
similarities between exemplar and prototype theory
both believe we can store exemplars and can use prototype. what we do use to determine membership is different
does exemplar theory require storing too much information
no LTM has lots of room
why can exemplar theory explain context effects
assumes categorization based on personal experience
how to make a prototype with exemplar theory
consider all exemplars stored in memory
problems with organization theories based on similarity (prototype and exemplar)
similarity based theories were proposed because of typicality ratings. if this is the case, then if typicality ratings were due to experimental procedure, the reasoning behind the similarity theory falls apart. both prototype and exemplar don’t tell you what features to compare specifically. categories may be arbitrary
why can exemplar theory explain typicality effects
because typical items are similar to many other category members, so it will be easy to retrieve from memory.
explanation based theories for categorization
knowledge and beliefs determines what is important for category membership. complex implicit ideas, including an idea of the cause of category membership (psychological essentialism, basically the dogginess of something). accounts for why we judge some features as more important than others for category membership
psychological essentialism works where and does not work where
it applies to natural categories, but social categorization (stereotypes) assume human essense, but these are not natural categories
how does psychological essentialism work
things have some form of essense that determines membership
