Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 431–434

Expertise and categorization

  • Richard P. Honeck
  • Michael Firment
  • Tammy J. S. Case
Article

Abstract

Experts exhibit various categorization phenomena, including category abstractness, use of second-order features, big chunks, category coherence, and category gradedness. Traditional views of categorization—the classical, prototype, and exemplar views—are variously successful in explaining these phenomena. We argue that our conceptual base view is more adequate.

References

  1. Adelson, B. (1985). Comparing natural and abstract categories: A case study from computer science. Cognitive Science, 9, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). On what some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T. H., & Koeske, R. D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  7. Feldhaus, R. (1987). The conceptual base view of categorization. Unpublished master—s thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  8. Honeck, R. P., Case, T., & Firment, M. (1987). Conceptual connections between realistic and abstract pictures. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  9. Honeck, R. P., Firment, M., & Kibler, C. (1987). Context and the generalizability of conceptually based categories, Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  10. Honeck, R. P., & Kibler, C. (1985). Representation in cognitive psychological theories of figurative language. In W. Paprotté & R. Dir-Ven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor (pp.381–423). Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. Honeck, R. P., Kibler, C., & Sugar, J. (1985). The conceptual base view of categorization. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Honeck, R. P., Sugar, J., & Kibler, C. (1982). Stories, categories, and figurative meaning. Poetics, 11, 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Honeck, R. P., Voegtle, K., Dorfmueller, M., & Hoffman, R. (1980). Proverbs, meaning, and group structure. In R. P. Honeck & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 127–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Larkin, J. H. (1985). Understanding, problem representations, and skill in physics. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol 2. Research and open questions (pp. 141–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Lesgold, A. (1984). Acquiring expertise. In J. R. Anderson & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Tutorials in learning and memory (pp. 31–60). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  16. McDermott, J., & Larkin, J. H. (1978). Re-representing textbook physics problems. Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  17. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1985). Star wars: A developmental study of expert and novice knowledge structures. Journal of Memory & Language, 24, 746–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9, 35–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patel, V. L., & Groen, G. J. (1986). Knowledge based solution strategies in medical reasoning. Cognitive Science, 10, 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosch, E. H. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosen & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Rosch, E. H., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., & Yengo, L. A. (in press). Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Voss, J. F., Vesonder, G. T., & Spilich, G. J. (1980). Generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 651–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard P. Honeck
    • 1
  • Michael Firment
    • 1
  • Tammy J. S. Case
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnati

Personalised recommendations