Demystifying theory-based categorization

Building Object Categories in Developmental Time

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 277-300

  Ahn, Woo Kyoung ^a   Luhmann, Christian C ^b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750905221     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410612908     Document Type: Chapter

References (47)

1. Ahn, W. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality. Cognition, 69, 135-178.
2. Ahn, W., Gelman, S.A., Amsterlaw, J.A., Hohenstein, J., & Kalish, C.W. (2000). Causal status effect in children's categorization. Cognition, 76, B35-B43.
3. Ahn, W., Kalish, C., Gelman, S.A., Medin, D.L., Luhmann, C., Atran, S., Coley, J.D., & Shafto, P. (2001). Why essences are essential in the psychology of concepts. Cognition, 82, 59-69.
4. Ahn, W., & Kim, N.S. (2000). The role of causal status of features in categorization:An overview. In D.L.Medin (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 23-65). New York: Academic Press.
5. Ahn, W., Kim, N.S., Lassaline, M.E., & Dennis, M.J. (2000). Causal status as a determinant of feature centrality. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1-55.
6. Ahn, W., Marsh, J., Luhmann, C., & Lee, K. (2002). Effect of theory-based feature correlations on typicality judgments. Memory and Cognition, 30, 107-118.
7. Anderson, J.R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Barton, M.E., & Komatsu, L.K. (1989). Defining features of natural kinds and artifacts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 433-447.
9. Bloom, P., & Markson, L. (1998). Intention and analogy in children's naming of pictorial representations. Psychological Science, 9, 200-204.
10. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Plenum.
11. Chaigneau, S.E., & Barsalou, L.W. (2002). Testing the roles of design history and affordances in the HIPE theory of function. In W.D.Gray & C.Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the TwentyFourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Dennett, D.C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Gelman, S.A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 65-95.
14. Gelman, S.A., & Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103.
15. Gelman, S.A., & Ebeling, K.S. (1998). Shape and representational status in children's early naming. Cognition, 66, B35-B47.
16. Gelman, S.A., & Hirschfeld, L.A. (1999). How biological is essentialism? In D.L.Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 403-446). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Gelman, S.A., & Kalish, C.W. (1993). Categories and causality. In R.Pasnak & M.L.Howe (Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development (Vol. 2, pp. 3-32). New York: Springer Verlag.
18. Gelman, S.A., & Koenig, M.A. (2003). Theory-based categorization in early childhood. In D. Rakison & L.Oakes (Eds.), Early category and concept development:Making sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion (pp. 330-359). London: Oxford University Press.
19. Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56, 165-193.
20. Heit, E. (1998). Influence of prior knowledge on selective weighting of category members. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 712-731.
21. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. New York:W.W.Norton & Company.
22. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D.T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
23. Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Keil, F.C., Smith, W.C., Simons, D.J., & Levin, D.T. (1998). Two dogmas of conceptual empiricism: Implications for hybrid models of the structure of knowledge. Cognition, 65, 103-135.
25. Kelemen, D. (1999). Functions, goals and intentions: Children's telelogical reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 461-468.
26. Kemler Nelson, D.G., Frankenfield, A., Morris, C., & Blair, C. (2000). Young children's use of functional information to categorize artifacts: Three factors that matter. Cognition, 77, 133-168.
27. Kim, N.S., & Ahn, W. (2002a). Clinical psychologists' theory-based representations of mental disorders affect their diagnostic reasoning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 451-476.
28. Kim, N.S., & Ahn, W. (2002b). The influence of naïve causal theories on lay concepts of mental illness. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 33-65.
29. Lamberts, K. (1998). The time course of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 695-711.
30. Landau, B., Smith, L.B., & Jones, S.S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299-321.
31. Luhmann, C.C., Ahn, W., & Palmeri, T.J. (2002). Theories and similarity:Categorization under speeded conditions. In W.D.Gray & C.D.Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 590-595. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Malt, B.C., & Johnson, E.C. (1992). Do artifact concepts have cores? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 195-217.
33. Matan, A., & Carey, S. (2001). Developmental changes within the core of artifact concepts. Cognition, 78, 1-26.
34. Murphy, G.L., & Medin, D.L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.
35. Rehder, B. (1999). A causal-model theory of categorization. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 595-600.
36. Rips, L.J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S.Vosniadou & A.Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21-59). New York:Cambridge University Press.
37. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
38. Searle, J.R. (1983). Intentionality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Sloman, S.A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
40. Sloman, S.A., & Malt, B. (2003). Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds. Conceptual representation [Special issue]. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18(5-6), 563-582.
41. Smith, E.E., & Sloman, S.A. (1994). Similarity-versus rule-based categorization. Memory & Cognition, 22, 377-386.
42. Smith, J.D., & Kemler Nelson, D.G. (1984). Overall similarity in adults' classification:The child in all of us. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 137-159.
43. Smith, L.B., Jones, S.S., & Landau, B. (1996). Naming in young children: A dumb attentional mechanism? Cognition, 60, 143-171.
44. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
45. Wellman, H.M. (1990). The child's theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation: An organismic-developmental approach to language and the expression of thought. New York: Wiley.
47. Woodward, A.L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition, 69, 1-34.