Memory for category information is idealized through contrast with competing options

Psychological Science

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 234-242

  Davis, Tyler ^a   Love, Bradley C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Categorization; Category contrast; Category distortion; Idealization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DECISION MAKING; ENERGY RESOURCE; HUMAN; LEARNING; PATTERN RECOGNITION; POLITICS; POLLUTION; REACTION TIME; RECALL; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STEREOTYPING;

ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONCEPT FORMATION; ENERGY-GENERATING RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MENTAL RECALL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; POLITICS; REACTION TIME; STEREOTYPING;

EID: 77951277138     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797609357712     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Ameel, E., & Storms, G. (2006). From prototypes to caricatures: Geometrical models for concept typicality. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 402-421.
2. Atran, S. (1999). Itzaj Maya folkbiological taxonomy. In D.L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 119-203). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Bang, M., Medin, D., & Atran, S. (2007). Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 13868-13874.
4. Barsalou, L.W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629-649.
5. Goldstone, R.L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 14, 608-628.
6. Goldstone, R.L., Steyvers, M., & Rofosky, B.J. (2003). Conceptual inter-relatedness and caricatures. Memory & Cognition, 31, 169-180.
7. Love, B.C., & Gureckis, T.M. (2005). Modeling learning under the influence of culture. In W. Ahn, R.L. Goldstone, B.C. Love, A.B. Markman, & P. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside of the lab: Festschrift in honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 229-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8. Love, B.C., Medin, D.L., & Gureckis, T.M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309-332.
9. Lynch, J.E., Coley, J.D., & Medin, D.L. (2000). Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, and graded structure among tree experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 28, 41-50.
10. Markman, A.B., & Ross, B.H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 592-613.
11. Medin, D.L., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization, reasoning, and decision making in development across cultures. Psychological Review, 111, 960-983.
12. Nosofsky, R.M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-57.
13. Osherson, D.N., Smith, E.E., Wilkie, O., López, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185-200.
14. Palmeri, T.J., & Nosofsky, R.M. (2001). Central tendencies, extreme points, and prototype enhancement effects in ill-defined perceptual categorization. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 197-235.
15. Posner, M.I., & Keele, S.W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353-363.
16. Rosch, E.H., & Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
17. Rosch, E.H., Simpson, C., & Miller, S.R. (1976). The structural bases of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 491-502.
18. Sakamoto, Y., Jones, M., & Love, B.C. (2008). Putting the psychology back into psychological models: Mechanistic vs. rational approaches. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1057-1065.
19. Spencer, J.P., Perone, S., & Johnson, J.S. (2009). The dynamic field theory and embodied cognitive dynamics. In J.P. Spencer, M.S. Thomas, & J.L. McClelland (Eds.), Toward a unified theory of development: Connectionism and dynamic systems theory reconsidered (pp. 86-118). New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799-806.