Featuring familiarity: How a familiar feature instantiation influences categorization

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 263-273

  Hannah, Samuel D ^a   Brooks, Lee R ^b  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Categorization; Concept formation; Decision making; Feature processing; Instantiated features

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; RECOGNITION;

ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 74349103176     PISSN: 11961961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0017919     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98, 409-429.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 11, 629-654.
3. Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, testimonial familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446-458.
4. Brooks, L. R., & Hannah, S. D. (2006). Instantiated features and the use of "rules." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 133-151.
5. Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 170-178.
6. Erickson, M. A., & Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 107-140.
7. Hannah, S. D. (2005). Feature representations and analytic/nonanalytic processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 41-46.
8. Hannah, S. D., & Brooks, L. R. (2006). Producing biased diagnosis with unambiguous stimuli: The importance of feature instantiations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1416-1423.
9. Hannah, S. D., Jamieson, R. K., & Brooks, L. R. (2009). From information to instantiation: Varying people's reliance on different levels of feature abstraction in concept learning. Manuscript in preparation.
10. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relation between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306-340.
11. Jamieson, R. K., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2005). The influence of grammatical, local, and organizational redundancy on implicit learning: An analysis using information theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 9-23.
12. Johnston, W. A., Hawley, K. J., & Famham, J. M. (1993). Novel popout: Empirical boundaries and tentative theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 140-153.
13. Johnston, W. A., Hawley, K. J., Plewe, S. H., Elliot, J. M., & Dewitt, M. J. (1990). Attention capture by novel stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 397-411.
14. Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309-332.
15. Martin, E. (1968). Stimulus meaningfulness and paired-associate transfer: An encoding variability hypothesis. Psychological Review, 75, 421-441.
16. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). The context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
17. Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plusexception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53-79.
18. Pothos, E. M. (2005). The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 1-49.
19. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
20. Schyns, P. G., Goldstone, R. L., & Thibaut, J.-P. (1998). The development of features in object concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 1-54.
21. Schyns, P. G., & Murphy, G. L. (1994). The ontogeny of part representation in object concepts. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 31, pp. 305-349). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
22. Schyns, P. G., & Rodet, L. (1997). Categorization creates functional features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 681-696.
23. Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. I., & Jenkins, H. M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classification. Psychological Monographs, 75(13, Whole No. 517), 1-42.
24. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
25. Sloman, S. A., Love, B. C., & Ann, W. (1997). Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive Science, 22, 189-228.
26. Thibaut, J.-P., & Gelaes, S. (2006). Exemplar effects in the context of a categorization rule: Featural and holistic influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1403-1415.
27. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.