Memory & Cognition

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 1387–1397 | Cite as

Attribute centrality and imaginative thought

  • Thomas B. Ward
  • Rebecca A. Dodds
  • Katherine N. Saunders
  • Cynthia M. Sifonis
Article

Abstract

Participants’ representations of the concepthuman were examined to differentiate three types of associations between concepts and their component attributes: the capacity of concepts to cue attributes (attribute accessibility), the capacity of attributes to cue concepts (instance accessibility), and the extent to which attributes are thought of as central to concepts (attribute centrality). The findings provide information about the concepthuman itself and, more generally, about the functionally distinct roles those different attribute-concept associations play in guiding imaginative thought. College students listed attributes that differentiate humans from other animals, rated the centrality of those attributes, and listed animals that possess those attributes. Other students drew and described extraterrestrials that possessed some of the attributes that were found to vary across those listing and rating tasks. Rated centrality was the most important determinant of an attribute’s impact on imaginative generation. When the imagined extraterrestrials were supposed to possess attributes that had been rated as central to humans (intelligence, emotional complexity, or opposable thumbs), participants projected more aspects of human form onto them than when the creatures were supposed to possess less central attributes or when attributes were unspecified.

References

  1. Ahn, W.-K. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality.Cognition,69, 135–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, R. A., &Caplan, L. J. (1987). Category representations and their implications for category structure.Memory & Cognition,15, 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, M. E., &Komatsu, L. K. (1989). Defining features of natural kinds and artifacts.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18, 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80(3, Pt. 2).Google Scholar
  5. Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns.Language,53, 810–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Estes, Z., &Glucksberg, S. (2000). Interactive property attribution in concept combination.Memory & Cognition,28, 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gagné, C. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and dual-process theory of conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,42, 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerrig, R. J., &Murphy, G. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts.Language & Cognitive Processes,7, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., &Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory & Cognition,15, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,23, 431–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Markman, A. B., &Wisniewski, E. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science,12, 529–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 27–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., &Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model.Cognitive Science,12, 485–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 434–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997a). Conceptual combination: Possibilities and esthetics. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 51–81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997b). When concepts combine.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wisniewski, E. J. (1998). Property instantiation in conceptual combination.Memory & Cognition,26, 1330–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wisniewski, E. J., &Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 241–284). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wisniewski, E. J., &Love, B. C. (1998). Properties versus relations in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas B. Ward
    • 1
  • Rebecca A. Dodds
    • 1
  • Katherine N. Saunders
    • 1
  • Cynthia M. Sifonis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station

Personalised recommendations