Concepts and Categorization from a Psychological Perspective

  • Yi Cai
  • Ching-man Au Yeung
  • Ho-fung Leung


Ontologies provide specifications of the concepts and categories we encounter in different domains. They provide us with conceptual models of how we perceive objects in the real world. Clearly, a good ontology model should have the ability to conceptualize concepts, categories and relations in a given domain in a way that is close to how they are perceived by human users. Therefore, in order to develop a better model of ontology, it would be necessary to first investigate how human beings think about concepts and categories. In fact, this is a well-studied topic in the field of cognitive psychology. For example, cognitive psychologists are interested in how concepts are defined and represented, and how concept hierarchies are formed. In this chapter, we review some studies in cognitive psychology that are closely related to the problems discussed in this book and would help us to develop better ontology models.


Object Typicality Psychological Perspective Classical View Membership Grade Family Resemblance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Medin DL, Smith EE (1984) Concepts and Concept Formation. In: Annu Rev Psychol 35: 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Murphy GL (2002) The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Lamberts K, Shanks D (eds) (1997) Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories. MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Smith EE, Medin DL (1981) Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Putnam H (1975) The Meaning of Meaning. In: Putnam H (ed) Mind, Language and Reality, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Apostle HG (1980) Aristotle’s Categories and Propositions (De Interpretatione). Peripatetic Press, Grinnell.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Bellezza FS (1984) Reliability of Retrieval From Semantic Memory: Noun Meanings. Bull Psychon Soc, pp 377–380.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Barsalou LW (1989) Intraconcept Similarity and Its Implications for Interconcept Similarity. In: Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 76–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Rosch E, Mervis CB (1975) Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structural of Categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Rosch EH (1973) On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories. In: More TE (ed) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Barsalou LW, Sewell DR (1985) Contrasting the Representation of Scripts and Categories. J Mem Lang 24: 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Galotti KM (2004) Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory. Wadsworth, Belmont.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Brooks LR (1973) Nonanalytic Concept Formation and Memory for Instances. In: Rosch EH, Lloyd BB (eds) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, pp 169–211.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hintzman DL (1986) “Schema Abstraction” in a Multiple-trace Memory Model. Psy Rev 93: 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Medin DL (1986) Comment on “Memory Storage and Retrieval Processes in Category Learning”. J Exp Psychol Gen 115: 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Cohen B, Murphy GL (1984) Models of Concepts. Cognitive Science 8: 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rumelhard DE (1980) The Building Blocks of Cognition. In: Spiro RJ, Bruce BC, Brewer WF (eds) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 33–58.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Komatsu LK (1992) Recent Views of Conceptual Structure. Psychol Bull 112(3): 500–526.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy Sets. Inform Control 8: 338–353.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Murphy GL (2002) The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Galotti KM (2004) Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory. Wadsworth, Belmont.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Vanpaemel W, Storms G, Ons B (2005) A Varying Abstraction Model for Categorization. In: CogSci2005, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 2277–2282.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Barsalou LW (1985) Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories. J Exp Psychol Learn 11(4): 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Armstrong SL, Gleitman LR, Gleitman H (1983) What Some Concepts Might Not Be. Cognition 13(3): 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Kamp H, Partee B (1995) Prototype Theory and Compositionality. Cognition 57: 129–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Rosch EH (1975) Cognitive Represerntations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Exp Psy 104: 192–233.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Schiffer S, Steele S (1988) Cognition and Representation. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Au Yeung CM, Leung HF (2006) Ontology with Likeliness and Typicality of Objects in Concepts. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4215. Springer, Berlin, pp 98–111.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Goldstone RL (1994) The Role of Similarity in Categorization: Providing a Groundwork. Cognition 52: 125–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Rips LJ (1989) Similarity, Typicality and Categorization. In: Vosniadou S, Ortony A (eds) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 21–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Tversky A (1977) Features of Similarity. Psychol Rev 84(4): 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Roth EM, Shoben EJ (1983) The Effect of Context on the Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychol 15: 346–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Warren RM, Obusek CJ (1971) Speech Perception and Phonemic Restorations. Perception and Psychophysics 9: 358–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Warren RW (1970) Perceptual Restoration of Missing Speech Sounds. Science 167: 392–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Bransford JD, Johnson MK (1972) Contextual Prerequisite for Understanding: Some Investigations of Comprehension and Recall. J Verb Learn Verb Be 11: 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Cheng PW, Holyoak KJ (1985) Pragmatic Reasoning Schemas. Cognitive Psychol 17: 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Asch SE (1952) Social Psychology. Prentice-Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Suzuki H, Ohnishi H, Shigemasu K (1992) Goal-directed Processes in Similarity Judgement. In: Prceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp 343–348.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Whorf BL (1941) Languages and logic. In: Carroll JB (ed) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Papers of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press, Boston, pp 233–245.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Barclay JR, Bransford JD, Franks JJ et al (1974) Comprehension and Semantic Flexibility. J Verb Learn and Verb Be 13: 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Barsalou LW (1982) Context-independent and Context-dependent Information in Concepts. Mem Cognition 10(1): 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Roth EM, Shoben EJ (1983) The Effect of Context on the Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychol 15: 346–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Ozturk P, Aamodt A (1997) Towards a Model of Context for Case-based Diagnostic Problem Solving. In: Context’ 99, pp 198–208.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Buvac S, Mason IA (1993) Propositional Logic of Context. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 412–419.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Giunchiglia F, Serafini L (1994) Multilanguage Hierarchical Logics, or: How we Can do Without Modal Logics. Artif Intell 65(1): 29–70.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Guha R, McCool R, Fikes R (2004) Contexts for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International SemanticWeb Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3298, pp 32–46.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Guha R, McCarthy J (2003) Varieties of Contexts. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, pp 164–177.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Akman V, Surav M (1996) Steps Toward Formalizing Context. AI Mag 17(3): 55–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press, Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi Cai
    • 1
  • Ching-man Au Yeung
    • 2
  • Ho-fung Leung
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Software EngineeringSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research InstituteHong KongChina
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations