Abstract
This paper focuses on theguppy effect (Osherson & Smith, 1981), that is, on the existence of examples of conjunctive concepts that are more typical of the conjunction than of both constituents. The most frequently given examples of this effect,guppy andgoldfish, are shown not to be more typical of the conjunctionpet fish than offish in two between-subjects and one within-subjects experiment. The frequency of the effect in a large empirical study is investigated, and better examples of the effect are suggested.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cohen, B., &Murphy, G. L. (1984). Models of concepts.Cognitive Science,8, 27–58.
Edgington, E. S. (1995).Randomization tests (3rd ed.). New York: Dekker.
Fodor, J., &Lepore, E. (1996). The red herring and the pet fish: Why concepts still can’t be prototypes.Cognition,58, 253–270.
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory & Cognition,15, 55–71.
Hampton, J. A. (1988). Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 12–32.
Hampton, J. A. (1991). The combination of prototype concepts. In P. Schwanenflugel (Ed.),The psychology of word meanings (pp. 91–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hampton, J. A. (1996). Conjunctions of visually based categories: Overextension and compensation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 378–396.
Huttenlocher, J., &Hedges, L. V. (1994). Combining graded categories: Membership and typicality.Psychological Review,101, 157–165.
Jones, G. V. (1982). Stacks not fuzzy sets: An ordinal basis for prototype theory of concepts.Cognition,12, 281–290.
Medin, D. L., &Smith, E. E. (1984). Concepts and concept formation.Annual Review of Psychology,35, 113–138.
Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science,12, 529–562.
Osherson, D. N., &Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts.Cognition,9, 35–58.
Osherson, D. N., &Smith, E. E. (1982). Gradedness and conceptual combination.Cognition,12, 299–318.
Posner, M. I., &Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas.Journal of Experimental Psychology,77, 353–363.
Rosch, E. H., Simpson, C., &Miller, R. S. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 491–502.
Smith, E. E., &Osherson, D. N. (1984). Conceptual combination with prototype concepts.Cognitive Science,8, 357–361.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., Van Mechelen, I., &Ruts, W. (1996). The dominance effect in concept conjunctions: Generality and interaction aspects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1266–1280.
Storms, G., Ruts, W., & Vandenbroucke, A. (1996).Syntactic rephrasing of conceptual conjunctions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Leuven.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information & Computation,8, 338–353.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research project was supported by Grant 2.0073.94 from the Belgian National Science Foundation (Fundamental Human Sciences) to P.D.B., I.V.M., and D. Geeraerts.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., Van Mechelen, I. et al. Not guppies, nor goldfish, but tumble dryers, Noriega, Jesse Jackson, panties, car crashes, bird books, and Stevie Wonder. Memory & Cognition 26, 143–145 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211377
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211377