Abstract
It is well known that people do not always make normative use of information about relative frequencies of categories when making categorical judgments. The “inverse base rate” effect (Medin & Edelson, 1988) is a typical example of this: Subjects violate normative reasoning principles by assigning certain ambiguous stimuli as belonging to the less frequent of two categories, rather than to the more common category. This effect has been explained as being due to the shifting of attention from shared stimulus features to distinctive features during learning. When stimuli are defined by values along continuous dimensions, rather than by the presence and absence of features, then attention could shift between dimensions or between values, or both. In three experiments, base rate differences were used to determine the way in which attention is shifted during learning about stimuli with continuously valued dimensions. Simulation modeling shows that the results are consistent with the movement of attention both between and within stimulus dimensions.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ahn, W. K., &Medin, D. L. (1992). A two-stage model of category construction.Cognitive Science,16, 81–121.
Anderson, J. A., Silverstein, J. W., Ritz, S. A., &Jones, R. S. (1977). Distinctive features, categorical perception, and probability learning: Some applications of a neural model.Psychological Review,84, 413–451.
Ashby, F. G., Queller, S., &Berretty, P. M. (1999). On the dominance of unidimensional rules in unsupervised categorization.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 1178–1199.
Dunn, J., & Kalish, M. L. (2000, August).Comparing models of categorization using signed difference analysis. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Gluck, M. A., &Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 227–247.
Goldstone, R. L. (1988). Perceptual learning.Annual Review of Psychology,49, 585–612.
Goldstone, R. L. (1993).Positively and negatively defined concepts (Research Rep. 88). Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Kalish, M. L., & Kruschke, J. K. (2000). The role of attention shifts in the categorization of continuous dimensioned stimuli.Psychological Research,64, 105–116.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning.Psychological Review,99, 22–44.
Kruschke, J. K. (1996). Base rates in category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 3–26.
Kruschke, J. K. (in press). Toward a unified model of category learning.Journal of Mathematical Psychology.
Kruschke, J. K., &Johansen, M. K. (1999). A model of probabilistic category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1083–1119.
Lewandowsky, S. (1995). Base-rate neglect in ALCOVE: A critical reevaluation.Psychological Review,102, 185–191.
Lewandowsky, S., Kalish, M. L., &Griffiths, T. L. (2000). Competing strategies in categorization: Expediency and resistance to knowledge restructuring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1666–1684.
Lewandowsky, S., &Kirsner, K. (2000). Knowledge partitioning: Context-dependent use of expertise.Memory & Cognition,28, 295–305.
Luce, R. D. (1963). Detection and recognition. In R. D. Luce, P. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 103–189). New York: Wiley.
Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., Edelson, S. M., & Freko, D. (1982). Correlated symptoms and simulated medical classification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 37–50.
Medin, D. L., &Edelson, S. M. (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 68–85.
Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D., &Atran, S. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome?Cognitive Psychology,32, 49–96.
Medin, D. L., &Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review,85, 207–238.
Medin, D. L., Wattenmaker, W. D., &Hampson, S. E. (1987). Family resemblance, conceptual cohesiveness, and category construction.Cognitive Psychology,19, 242–279.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity and the identification—categorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 39–57.
Nosofsky, R. M., Kruschke, J. K., &McKinley, S. (1992). Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 211–233.
Shanks, D. R. (1991). A connectionist account of base-rate biases in categorization.Connection Science,3, 143–162.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by a Small ARC grant to the author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kalish, M.L. An inverse base rate effect with continuously valued stimuli. Memory & Cognition 29, 587–597 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200460
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200460