Abstract
This articleresponds to the comments ofTversky and Hemenway (1991), who criticized the logic, stimuli, and data analysis of Murphy (1991). It is argued here that their objections do not mitigate the conclusions drawn by Murphy. In particular, the objection that the stimuli were not natural enough to reveal differences between category levels seems to presuppose an answer to the question under investigation. However, further experimentation with other stimuli might resolve this issue empirically.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Biederman, J. (1987). Recognition-by-components. Atheory of image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Corter, J. E., Gluck, M. A., &Bower, G. H. (1988). Basic levels in hierarchically structured categories.Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference ofthe Cognitive Science Society (pp. 118–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Hoffman, D. D., &Richards, W. (1985). Parts in recognition.Cognition,18, 65–96.
Markman, E. M. (1989).Categorization and naming in children. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Maiu, D. (1982).Vision. New York: Freeman.
Morris, M. W., &Murphy, G. L. (1990). Converging operations on a basic level in event taxonomies.Memory & Cognition,18, 407–418.
Murphy, G. L. (1991). Parts in object concepts: Experiments with artificial categories.Memory & Cognition,19, 423–438.
Murphy, G. L., &Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage.Journalof Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 70–84.
Murphy, G. L., &Smith, E. E. (1982). Basic-level superiority in picture categorization.Journalof Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 1–20.
Posner, M. I., &Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis ofabstract ideas.Journal of Experimental Psychology,77, 353–363.
Rifkin, A. (1985). Evidence for a basic level in event taxonomies.Memory & Cognition,13, 538–556.
Rosch, E., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure ofcategories.Cognitive Psychology,7,573–605.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B.,Gray, W., Johnson, D., &Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.
Schyns, P. G., &Murphy, G. L. (1991). The ontogeny of units in object categories.Proceedings ofthe 13th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Tversky, B., &Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 169–193.
Tversky, B., &Hemenway, K. (1991). Parts and the basic level in natural categories and artificial stimuli: Comments on Murphy (1991).Memory & Cognition,19, 439–442.
Winston, M. E., Chaffin, R., &Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations.Cognitive Science,11, 417–444.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murphy, G.L. More on parts in object concepts: Response to Tversky and Hemenway. Memory & Cognition 19, 443–447 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199566
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199566