OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hampton, J. A.; Dubois, D.; Yeh, W. (2006)
Publisher: Springer
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF
The patterns of classification of borderline instances of eight common taxonomic categories were examined under three different instructional conditions to test two predictions: first, that lack of a specified context contributes to vagueness in categorization, and second, that altering the purpose of classification can lead to greater or lesser dependence on similarity in classification. The instructional conditions contrasted purely pragmatic with more technical/quasi-legal contexts as purposes for classification, and these were compared with a no-context control. The measures of category vagueness were between-subjects disagreement and within-subjects consistency, and the measures of similarity based categorization were category breadth and the correlation of instance categorization probability with mean rated typicality, independently measured in a neutral context. Contrary to predictions, none of the measures of vagueness, reliability, category breadth, or correlation with typicality were generally affected by the instructional setting as a function of pragmatic versus technical purposes. Only one subcondition, in which a situational context was implied in addition to a purposive context, produced a significant change in categorization. Further experiments demonstrated that the effect of context was not increased when participants talked their way through the task, and that a technical context did not elicit more all-or-none categorization than did a pragmatic context. These findings place an important boundary condition on the effects of instructional context on conceptual categorization.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Hampton, J.A. (1998). Similarity-based categorisation and fuzziness of natural categories. Cognition, 65, 137-165.
    • Hampton, J.A., & Gardiner, M.M. (1983). Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 491-516.
    • Kalish, C.W. (1995). Essentialism and graded membership in animal and artifact categories. Memory & Cognition, 23, 335-353.
    • Keefe, R., & Smith, P. (1997). Theories of Vagueness. In P.Keefe and P.Smith (Eds.) Vagueness: a Reader, (pp. 1-57). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • McCloskey, M., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well-defined or fuzzy sets? Memory & Cognition, 6, 462-472.
    • Medin. D.L., Lynch, E.B., Coley, J.D., & Atran, S. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome? Cognitive Psychology, 32, 49-96.
    • Murphy, G.L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Murphy, G.L., & Medin, D.L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.
    • Osherson, D.N., & Smith, E.E. (1997). On typicality and vagueness. Cognition, 64, 189-206.
    • Rey, G. (1983). Concepts and Stereotypes. Cognition, 15, 237-262.
    • Rips, L.J. (1989). Similarity, typicality and categorization. In S.Vosniadou & A.Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21-59).
    • Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
    • Roth, E.M., & Shoben, E.J. (1983). The effect of context on the structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 346-378.
    • Smith, E.E., & Sloman, S. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory & Cognition, 22, 377-386.
    • Weatherburn, C.E. (1961). A First Course in Mathematical Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok