Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF
The adequacy of similarity to prototype as an account of categorization in natural concepts was assessed by analyzing the monotonicity of the relation between typicality of an item in a category and the probability of a positive categorization response using data from McCloskey and Glucksberg (1978). The analysis revealed a strong underlying similarity-based threshold curve, with systematic deviations. Further data collection showed that deviations from the curve could be attributed to the effects of unfamiliarity and non-categorial associations on typicality judgments, as well as differences between the perceptual appearance of an item (which tended to boost typicality) and its underlying nature (which tended to boost categorization). The results are discussed in terms of the different presuppositions and task constraints involved in rating typicality as opposed to performing a categorization.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Armstrong S.L., Gleitman, L.R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263-308.
    • Barsalou, L.W. (1985). Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629-654.
    • Barsalou, L.W., & Hale, C.R. (1993). Components of conceptual representation: from feature lists to recursive frames. In I. van Mechelen, J.A.Hampton, R.S.Michalski, & P.Theuns, (Eds.), Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis (pp. 97-144). London: Academic Press.
    • Bassok, M., & Medin, D.L. (1997). Birds of a feather flock together: Similarity judgments with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 311-336.
    • Braisby, N. & Franks, B. (1996) Why concepts only appear to be fuzzy. Unpublished manuscript.
    • Braisby, N., Franks, B., & Hampton, J.A. (1996). Psychological Essentialism and Concept Use. Cognition, 59, 247-274.
    • Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1977). Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 38-48.
    • Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 12, (pp. 3-52), New York: Academic Press.
    • Cantor, N., Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J.C. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological situations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45-77.
    • Cantor, N., Smith, E.E., French, R., & Mezzich, J. (1980). Psychiatric diagnosis as prototype categorization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 181-193.
    • Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Clark, E.V. (1973). Meanings and Concepts. In J.H.Flavell, & E.M.Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp 787-840). New York: Wiley.
    • Fried, L.S., & Holyoak, K.J. (1984). Induction of category distributions: A framework for classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 234-257.
    • Gelman, S.A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 65-95.
    • Gigerenzer, G. (1994). Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for Psychology (and vice versa). In Wright, G., and Ayton, P. (Eds.) Subjective Probability. New York: Wiley.
    • Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics - Reply. Psychological Review, 103, 592-596.
    • Goodman, N. (1970). Seven strictures on similarity. In L.Foster & J.W.Swanson (Eds.), Experience and theory (pp. 19-29). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
    • Hampton, J.A. (1976). An Experimental Study of Concepts in Language. Doctoral thesis, University of London.
    • Hampton, J.A. (1979). Polymorphous Concepts in Semantic Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441-461.
    • Hampton, J.A. (1981). An Investigation of the Nature of Abstract Concepts. Memory and Cognition, 9, 149-156.
    • Hampton, J.A. (1988). Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 12-32.
    • Hampton, J.A. (1993). Prototype models of concept representation. In I.van Mechelen, J.A.Hampton, R.S.Michalski, & P.Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis, (pp. 67-95). London: Academic Press.
    • Hampton, J.A. (1995a). Testing Prototype Theory of Concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 686-708.
    • Hampton, J.A. (1995b). Similarity-based categorization: the development of prototype theory. Psychological Belgica, 35, 103-125.
    • Hampton, J.A. (1997). Psychological representation of concepts. In M.A.Conway (Ed.) Cognitive Models of Memory, pp. 81-110. Hove: Psychology Press.
    • Hampton, J.A., & Dubois, D. (1996). Context and classification. Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago IL, November.
    • 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.
    • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the Reality of Cognitive Illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591.
    • Kalish, C.W. (1995). Essentialism and graded membership in animal and artifact categories. Memory and Cognition, 23, 335-353.
    • Keil, F.C. (1989). Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Lamberts, K. (1995). Categorization under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 161-180.
    • Landau, B. (1982). Will the real grandmother please stand up? The psychological reality of dual meaning representation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 47-62.
    • Malt, B.C. (1990). Features and beliefs in the mental representation of categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 289-315.
    • Malt, B.C. (1994). Water is not H2O. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 41-70.
    • Malt, B.C., & Johnson, E.C. (1992). Do artifact concepts have cores? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 195-217.
    • Malt, B.C., & Smith, E.E. (1982). The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Memory and Cognition, 10, 69-75.
    • McCloskey, M. (1980). The stimulus familiarity problem in semantic memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 485-502.
    • McCloskey, M., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well-defined or fuzzy sets? Memory and Cognition, 6, 462-472.
    • Medin, D.L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological Essentialism. In S.Vosniadou & A.Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, pp. 179-195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
    • Medin, D.L., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 355-368.
    • Murphy, G.L., & Medin, D.L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.
    • Nosofsky, R.M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 700-708.
    • Osherson, D.N., & Smith, E.E. (1982). Gradedness and conceptual conjunction. Cognition, 12, 299-318.
    • Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Rips, L.J. (1989). Similarity, typicality and categorization. In S.Vosniadou & A.Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, pp. 21-59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Rips, L.J., & Collins, A. (1993). Categories and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 468-486.
    • Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-232.
    • Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
    • Slobin, D.I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C.A.Ferguson, & D.I.Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 45-54). New York: Springer.
    • Smith, E.E., Shoben, E.J., & Rips, L.J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic Memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214-241.
    • Smith, E.E., & Sloman, S. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory and Cognition, 22, 377-386.
    • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
    • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article