
doi: 10.3758/mc.37.8.1150
pmid: 19933458
Two experiments measured the joint influence of three key sets of semantic features on the frequency with which artifacts (Experiment 1) or plants and creatures (Experiment 2) were categorized in familiar categories. For artifacts, current function outweighed both originally intended function and current appearance. For biological kinds, appearance and behavior, an inner biological function, and appearance and behavior of offspring all had similarly strong effects on categorization. The data were analyzed to determine whether an independent cue model or an interactive model best accounted for how the effects of the three feature sets combined. Feature integration was found to be additive for artifacts but interactive for biological kinds. In keeping with this, membership in contrasting artifact categories tended to be superadditive, indicating overlapping categories, whereas for biological kinds, it was subadditive, indicating conceptual gaps between categories. It is argued that the results underline a key domain difference between artifact and biological concepts.
INFORMATION, Concept Formation, BF, CLASSIFICATION, Discrimination Learning, Judgment, CATEGORIZATION, COHERENCE, Animals, Humans, LINEAR SEPARABILITY, Problem Solving, Probability, OBJECT, RECOGNITION, KINDS, Association Learning, Plants, ARTIFACT CONCEPTS, Semantics, Pattern Recognition, Visual, BEHAVIOR
INFORMATION, Concept Formation, BF, CLASSIFICATION, Discrimination Learning, Judgment, CATEGORIZATION, COHERENCE, Animals, Humans, LINEAR SEPARABILITY, Problem Solving, Probability, OBJECT, RECOGNITION, KINDS, Association Learning, Plants, ARTIFACT CONCEPTS, Semantics, Pattern Recognition, Visual, BEHAVIOR
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 19 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
