The Psychological Record

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 109–120 | Cite as

Concept Learning: Similarity and Number of Exemplars Category Number Information, and Description of Prototypical Features

  • Donald L. King
  • Lauren A. Newman
Article

Abstract

College students classified the sex of day-old chicks from drawings of their genital eminences. Employing geometrie forms as one category of training stimuli increased errors on test stimuli. This between-category similarity outcome contrasts with others to some extent, and it also argues against the sufficiency of a template model of conceptual functioning. Training with only a single pair of exemplars also impaired transfer. Other research has confounded exemplar number with amount of training Informing subjects of the number of categories the drawings belong to failed to facilitate transfer significantly. A description of the prototypical features differentiating the two sex categories enhanced transfer. Several aspects of the communication may have been influential.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Note

  1. 1.
    SEXTON, T. Phone communication, September, 1979. Dr. Sexton is Chief of Avian Physiology Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture, Sea-Ar, Beltsville, Maryland.Google Scholar

References

  1. ANDREW, G., & HARLOW, H. F. 1948. Performance of macaque monkeys on a test of the concept of generalized triangularity. Comparative Psychological Monographs, 19, (3, Serial No. 100).Google Scholar
  2. BARRESI, J., ROBBINS, D., & SHAIN, K. 1975. Role of distinctive features in the abstraction of related concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 360–368.Google Scholar
  3. BJORK, R.A., LaBERGE, D., & LEGRAND, R. 1968. The modification of short-term memory through instructions to forget. Psychonomic Science, 10, 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BOURNE, L.E., Jr. 1957. Effects of delay of information feedback and task complexity on the identification of concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BRANSFORD, J.D., & FRANKS, J.J. 1971. The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BULGARELLA, R., & ARCHER, E.J. 1962. Concept identification of auditory stimuli as a function of amount of relevant and irrelevant information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 254–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CANFIELD, T.H. 1940. Sex determination of day-old chicks. Poultry Science, 19, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CERELLA, J. 1979. Visual classes and natural concepts in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 68–77.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. FRANKS, J.J., & BRANSFORD, J.D. 1971. Abstraction of visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GOLDMAN, D., & HOMA, D. 1977. Integrative and metric properties of abstracted information as a function of category discriminability, instance variability, and experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 375–385.Google Scholar
  11. GRAVETTER, F., & LOCKHEAD, G.R. 1973. Criterial range as a frame of reference for stimulus judgment. Psychological Review, 80, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. HELSON, H., & NASH, M.C. 1960. Anchor, contrast, and paradoxical distance effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. HOMA, D. 1978. Abstraction of ill-defined form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 407–416.Google Scholar
  14. HOMA, D., & CHAMBLISS, D. 1975. The relative contributions of common and distinctive information on the abstraction from ill-defined categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 351–359.Google Scholar
  15. HOMA, D., RHOADS, D., & CHAMBLISS, D. 1979. Evolution of conceptual structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 11–23.Google Scholar
  16. HOMA, D., & VOSBURGH, R. 1976. Category breadth and the abstraction of prototypical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,, 322–330.Google Scholar
  17. NESHEIM, M.C, AUSTIC, R.E., & CARD, L.E. 1979. Poultry production (12th ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
  18. OKADA, R., & BURROWS, D. 1973. Organizational factors in high-speed scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. OMOHUNDRO, I. 1981. Recognition vs. classification ol ill-defined category exemplars. Mvmoiy und Cognition, 9, 324–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ROSCH, E., & MERVIS, C.B. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SJÖBERG, L. 1972. A cognitive theory of similarity. Goteborg Psychological Reports, 2(10).Google Scholar
  22. STRAUSS, M.S. 1979. Abstraction of prototypical information by adults and 10-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 618–632.Google Scholar
  23. TVERSKY, A. 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald L. King
    • 1
  • Lauren A. Newman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHoward UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations