Module 7 Flashcards
(34 cards)
Category
Group of objects that belong together because they are similar in some way; help predict behavior and make decisions, especially in novel situations
Knowledge Organization
Information is stored interconnectedly, and people in cultures have similar structures
Exemplar
An item in the category; treated as similar to each other
Concept
Mental representation of a category
Classical Theory of categorization
Categories are defined by a list of necessary and sufficient features (defining features); objects in a category have defined membership based on whether they possess these features
Defining features
Set of necessary and sufficient features for category membership; difficult to create or name, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist
Necessary
Set of features are required for membership
Sufficient
Set of features are the only features required for membership
Typicality effects
Some items are more typical examples of a concept, and can be rated as such. Rejects idea of defining features.
Evidence: respond faster to more typical exemplars, generate typical more than atypical, typical items produce semantic priming effects (help processing of following category members)
Prototype theory
Categories have fuzzy boundaries, and are described by characteristic features. The prototype is the set of features that objects are matched to to determine membership. More matching features = more typical
Characteristic features
Set of features that are likely, but are not necessary. Used to match objects to a category in prototype theory
Prototype
Theoretical/mental representation of a ‘perfect’ example/member of a category
Central tendency
Strongest characteristics (the prototype is made of the central tendency)
Family resemblance
All objects of a category must have some features in common (at least 1 feature in common with at least 1 other member)
Exemplar theory
Similar to prototype theory, but matching to a specific example of a category member rather than a feature list. Addresses atypical members (objects can be members of multiple groups).
Difference in prototype and exemplar theory
Main storage system/process being used. Prototype uses a feature list, exemplar uses specific objects that are most typical of a category
Forming categories
We learn about members of a category and that can shift our prototype; categories begin forming in childhood and can form quickly and naturally
Problems with prototype and exemplar theory
Rely on similarity; potentially infinite number of similarities between any objects and no relevance marker.
Issue with typicality ratings
People can generate ratings for fixed categories (odd numbers); perhaps comes from wanting to please experimenter; if these results are flawed, we possibly don’t need prototype or exemplar theory to try and explain themE
Explanation based theory
We have implicit, unconscious ideas about categories and concepts. Follows psychological essentialism. Explains typicality ratings.
Issue: we assume essences apply to all natural categories but that is false (leads to stereotypes)
Psychological essentialism
There is a cause of a category (essence), we just can’t define it. Every object has an essence of membership. Essences (almost) always need a verbal label
Child experiment of essentialism
Told children stories of a transspecies cat and a toaster turning into a coffee maker. Kids will ascribe an essence to the natural animal (a cat is always a cat) and not to an object (the toaster can become the coffee maker). Supports Explanation based theory
Hierarchy
Organizing objects by their level in comparison to each other; superordinate -> basic -> subordinate; expertise can shift where you place your baseline of ‘basic’, but won’t change the structure
Basic level
informative and distinctive (ex: dog)
