Looking beyond looks: Comments on Sloutsky, Kloos, and Fisher, “When looks are everything: Appearance similarity versus kind information in early induction”

[1]  S. P. Schwartz.  Naming, necessity, and natural kinds , 1977 .

[2]  S. Gelman.  The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  Susan A. Gelman,et al.  Inductions from novel categories: The role of language and conceptual structure , 1990 .

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

[5]  Jennifer M. Zosh,et al.  Early Category and Concept Development: Making Sense of the Blooming, Buzzing Confusion , 2004 .

[6]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  P. Bloom,et al.  How specific is the shape bias? , 2003, Child development.

[8]  A. Gopnik.  Words, Kinds and Causal Powers: a Theory Theory Perspective on Early Naming and Categorization , 2003 .

[9]  V. Sloutsky,et al.  When Looks Are Everything Appearance Similarity Versus Kind Information in Early , 2007 .

[10]  S. Waxman,et al.  Setters and samoyeds: the emergence of subordinate level categories as a basis for inductive inference in preschool-age children. , 1997, Developmental psychology.

[11]  Ellen M. Markman,et al.  Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems of Induction , 1989 .

[12]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  What's So Essential About Essentialism? A Different Perspective on the Interaction of Perception, Language, and Conceptual Knowledge , 1993 .

[13]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[14]  Sandra R. Waxman,et al.  Linguistic biases and the establishment of conceptual hierarchies: Evidence from preschool children , 1990 .

[15]  D. Geoffrey Hall,et al.  Basic-level individuals , 1993, Cognition.