Abstract
Are natural language categories represented by instances of the category or by a summary representation? We used an exemplar model and a prototype model, both derived within the framework of the generalized context model (Nosofsky, 1984, 1986), to predict typicality ratings for 12 superordinate natural language concepts. The models were fitted to typicality ratings averaged across participants and to the typicality judgments of individual participants. Both analyses yielded results in favor of the exemplar model. These results suggest that higher-level natural language concepts are represented by their subordinate members, rather than by a summary representation.
Article PDF
References
Ameel, E., & Storms, G. (2006). From prototypes to caricatures: Geometrical models for concept typicality. Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 402–421.
De Wilde, E., Vanoverberghe, V., Storms, G., & De Boeck, P. (2003). The instantiation principle re-evaluated. Memory, 11, 533–548.
Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 441–461.
Hampton, J. [A.] (1993). Prototype models of concept representation. In I. Van Mechelen, J. [A.] Hampton, R. S. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 67–95). London: Academic Press.
Hampton, J. A., & Gardiner, M. M. (1983). Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 491–516.
Heit, E., & Barsalou, L. W. (1996). The instantiation principle in natural categories. Memory, 4, 413–451.
Keller, D., & Kellas, G. (1978). Typicality as a dimension of encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4, 78–85.
Lee, M. D. (2001). Determining the dimensionality of multidimensional scaling representations for cognitive modeling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 149–166.
Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1998). Selective attention and the formation of linear decision boundaries: Comment on McKinley and Nosofsky (1996). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 301–321.
Malt, B. C., & Smith, E. E. (1984). Correlated properties in natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 250–269.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.
Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1984). Concepts and concept formation. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 113–138.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 104–114.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1987). Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 13, 87–108.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 700–708.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Typicality in logically defined categories: Exemplar-similarity versus rule instantiation. Memory & Cognition, 19, 131–150.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1992). Exemplars, prototypes, and similarity rules. In A. F. Healy, S. M. Kosslyn, & R. M. Shiffrin (Eds.), Essays in honor of William K. Estes: Vol. 1. From learning theory to connectionist theory (pp. 149–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 382–407.
Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14, 665–681.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
Ruts, W., De Deyne, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., & Storms, G. (2004). Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 506–515.
Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 54–87.
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, J. D., & Minda, J. P. (1998). Prototypes in the mist: The early epochs of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1411–1436.
Smits, T., Storms, G., Rosseel, Y., & De Boeck, P. (2002). Fruits and vegetables categorized: An application of the generalized context model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 836–844.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., & Ruts, W. (2000). Prototype and exemplarbased information in natural language categories. Journal of Memory & Language, 42, 51–73.
Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., & Storms, G. (2007). Determining the dimensionality in spatial representations of semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 427–438.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported in this article is part of Interdisciplinary Research Project IDO/02/004, sponsored by the Research Council of the University of Leuven, as well as of Research Project OT/05/27; both of these grants were given to the third author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Voorspoels, W., Vanpaemel, W. & Storms, G. Exemplars and prototypes in natural language concepts: A typicality-based evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 630–637 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.630
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.630