Abstract
In studies of category formation, subjects rarely construct family resemblance categories. Instead, they divide objects into categories using a single dimension. This is a puzzling result given the widely accepted view that natural categories are organized in terms of a family resemblance principle. The observation that natural categories support inductive inferences is used here to test the hypothesis that family resemblance categories would be constructed if stimuli were first used to generate inductive inferences. In two experiments, subjects answered either induction questions, which made interproperty relationships more salient, or frequency questions, which required information only about individual properties, before they performed a sorting task. Subjects were likely to produce family resemblance sorts if they had first answered induction questions but not if they had answered frequency questions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ahn, W. (1990). Effect of background knowledge on creation of family resemblance categories. InProceedings of the 12th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 149–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ahn, W., &Medin, D. L. (1992). A two-stage model of category construction.Cognitive Science,16, 81–121.
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review,93, 411–428.
Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Markman, E. M. (1989).Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Murphy, G. L., &Ross, B. H. (1994). Predictions from uncertain categorizations.Cognitive Psychology,27, 148–193.
Regehr, G., &Brooks, L. R. (1995). Category organization in free recall: The organizing effect of an array of stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 347–363.
Rosch, E., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7, 573–605.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., &Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.
Ross, B. H. (in press). Category representations and the effects of interacting with instances.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition.
Smith, E. E., &Medin, D. L. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spalding, T. L., &Murphy, G. L. (in press). Effects of background knowledge on category construction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition.
Wattenmaker, W. D. (1995). Knowledge structures and linear separability: Integrating information in object and social categories.Cognitive Psychology,28, 274–328.
Wattenmaker, W. D., Dewey, G. I., Murphy, T. D., &Medin, D. L. (1986). Linear separability and concept learning: Context, relational properties, and concept naturalness.Cognitive Psychology,18, 158–194.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH41704. We thank Arthur Markman, Brian Ross, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on a draft of this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lassaline, M.E., Murphy, G.L. Induction and category coherence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3, 95–99 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210747
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210747