Are abstract and concrete objects categorized similarly? In studies of psychological categories of concrete objects, Rosch and her colleagues have documented two phenomena (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & BoyesBraem, 1976). They found a basic level of conceptual abstraction and a perception of categorical structure based on family resemblance. To parallel Rosch’s experiments, this article reports three studies of categories of abstract objects. Working within a Roschian experimental paradigm, we ask whether computer scientists identify a natural, basic level of abstraction similar to that found for concrete objects? We also ask whether these categories exhibit prototypicality and family resemblance characteristics? The question of whether abstract and concrete objects are similarly categorized is motivated by the results of Adelson (1981) which suggested that expert programmers chunk single lines of code into conceptual objects. Adelson asked novice and expert programmers to recall a set of 16 lines of programming code which had been presented in random order. Although
[1]
B. Adelson.
Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programming languages
,
1981,
Memory & cognition.
[2]
E. Rosch,et al.
Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories
,
1975,
Cognitive Psychology.
[3]
Edward E. Smith,et al.
Basic-level superiority in picture categorization
,
1982
.
[4]
Wayne D. Gray,et al.
Basic objects in natural categories
,
1976,
Cognitive Psychology.
[5]
B. Adelson.
When Novices Surpass Experts: The Difficulty of a Task May Increase With Expertise
,
1984
.
[6]
Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.
Expertise in Problem Solving.
,
1981
.
[7]
Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.
Pictures and names: Making the connection
,
1984,
Cognitive Psychology.