What Some Effects Might not be: The Time to Verify Membership in “Well-Defined” Categories

Armstrong, Gleitman, and Gleitman (1983) reported shorter categorization times for members of well-defined categories judged more typical. They concluded that these effects could not originate in a graded, similarity-based category representation and consequently that the typicality effects obtained with natural categories might not be indicative of such a structure either. In this article, we re-examine this conclusion, focusing first on the performance obtained with well-defined categories of different sizes. Only the larger categories used showed variations in typicality ratings and produced typicality effects on categorization times. However, multiple regression analyses showed the effects on categorization times to be better explained by a measure of associative strength, called category dominance. The range of various predictor variables was equated in a follow-up experiment involving large, natural, and well-defined categories. Results obtained with well-defined categories showed pronounced dominance effects when typicality was controlled, but no reliable typicality effect when category dominance and instance familiarity were controlled. Results were opposite for natural categories. By showing that well-defined categories fail to produce unbiased typicality effects, our results bring added support to the hypothesis that the effects obtained with natural categories originate in a graded, similarity-based category structure.

[1]  U. Neisser.  Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization , 1989 .

[2]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts , 1987 .

[3]  J. L. Myers,et al.  Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Sharon Lee Armstrong,et al.  What some concepts might not be , 1983, Cognition.

[5]  A. Sanford,et al.  Semantic distance effects in naming superordinates , 1974, Memory & Cognition.

[6]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: Implications for models of semantic memory , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  E. Rosch.  ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PERCEPTUAL AND SEMANTIC CATEGORIES1 , 1973 .

[8]  Serge Larochelle,et al.  Determinants of Response Times in the Semantic Verification Task , 1994 .

[9]  A. Glass,et al.  Evidence for two kinds of low-typical instances in a categorization task , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Stephen Dubin.  How many subjects? Statistical power analysis in research , 1990 .

[11]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  The role of familiarity in determining typicality , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[12]  P. Casey,et al.  A reexamination of the roles of typicality and category dominance in verifying category membership , 1992 .

[13]  E. Loftus,et al.  Categorization norms for fifty representative instances , 1971 .

[14]  T. Odlin.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[15]  James A. Hampton,et al.  Testing the Prototype Theory of Concepts , 1995 .

[16]  J. Hampton.  Associative and similarity-based processes in categorization decisions , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[17]  Karl P. Hunt,et al.  Category-item frequency and category-name meaningfulness (m'): Taxonomic norms for 84 categories. , 1971 .

[18]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Alternative conceptions of semantic theory , 1975, Cognition.

[19]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Classification in well-defined and ill-defined categories: evidence for common processing strategies. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations , 1973 .

[21]  J. Chumbley,et al.  The roles of typicality, instance dominance, and category dominance in verifying category membership. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  G. Lakoff.  Cognitive models and prototype theory. , 1987 .

[23]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Categories and concepts , 1984 .

[25]  G. Miller,et al.  Language and Perception , 1976 .

[26]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[27]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Negative Judgments in and about Semantic Memory. , 1974 .

[28]  M. McCloskey.  The Stimulus Familiarity Problem in Semantic Memory Research , 1980 .

[29]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts , 1981, Cognition.

[30]  D. Balota,et al.  Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  J. Hampton.  An investigation of the nature of abstract concepts , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[32]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .