Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tracking mouse movement in feature inference: Category labels are different from feature labels

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we examine the role of category labels in inductive inference. Some leading research has suggested that information about category membership works just like any other feature in categorical inductions, whereas other research has proposed that the influence of category membership on induction goes beyond that of other features. To investigate these claims further, we developed an online measure of judgments that is akin to eyetracking. The judgment results and the mouse-tracking data jointly support the view that category labels do affect inductive inferences in a way distinct from that for feature information. When arbitrary labels conveyed category membership information, participants viewed these labels more often and earlier in a trial, in comparison with cases in which the same labels conveyed non-membership information. Our results suggest that category membership information works like a guide for inference. An ecological rationale for this induction strategy is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1954).The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1990).The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corneille, O., Klein, O., Lambert, S., &Judd, C. M. (2002). On the role of familiarity with units of measurement in categorical accentuation: Tajfel and Wilkes (1963) revised and replicated.Psychological Science,13, 380–383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J. (1992). Psychology and prejudice: A historical analysis and integrative framework.American Psychologist,47, 1182–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A. (2003).The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A., &Coley, J. D. (1990). The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird: Categories and inference in 2-year-old children.Developmental Psychology,26, 796–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A., &Heyman, G. D. (1999). Carrot-eaters and creaturebelievers: The effects of lexicalization on children’s inferences about social categories.Psychological Science,10, 489–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A., &Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children.Cognition,23, 183–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & theABC Research Group (1999).Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., &Sherman, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.),Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 1–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heit, E., &Rubinstein, J. (1994). Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 411–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, A. R., Blackwell, A. F., &Marriott, K. (2003). A tool for tracking visual attention: The Restricted Focus Viewer.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35, 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction.Psychological Review,80, 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashima, Y., Woolcock, J., &Kashima, E. S. (2000). Group impressions as dynamic configurations: The tensor product model of group impression formation and change.Psychological Review,107, 914–942.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning.Psychological Review,99, 22–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z., Miller, D. T., &Claire, T. (1990). Combing social categories: The role of causal reasoning.Cognitive Science,14, 551–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z., &Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory.Psychological Review,103, 284–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., &Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning.Psychological Review,111, 309–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malt, B. C., &Sloman, S. A. (2004). Conversation and convention: Enduring influences on name choice for common objects.Memory & Cognition,32, 1346–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., &Gennari, S. P. (2003). Universality and language specificity in object naming.Journal of Memory & Language,49, 20–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,25, 431–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., &Makin, V. S. (1998). Referential communication and category acquisition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., &Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning.Psychological Bulletin,129, 592–613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, E. M. (1989).Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. L., Coley, J. D., Storms, G., &Hayes, B. K. (2003). A relevance theory of induction.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 517–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. L., &Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L., &Ross, B. H. (1994). Predictions from uncertain categorizations.Cognitive Psychology,27, 148–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., &Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction.Psychological Review,97, 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos, E. M. (2005). The rules versus similarity distinction.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,28, 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.Psychological Bulletin,114, 510–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rehder, B., &Hoffman, A. B. (2005a). Eyetracking and selective attention in category learning.Cognitive Psychology,51, 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehder, B., &Hoffman, A. B. (2005b). Thirty-something categorization results explained: Selective attention, eyetracking, and models of category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 811–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7, 573–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B. H., Gelman, S. G., &Rosengren, K. S. (2005). Children’s category-based inferences affect classification.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,23, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E. B., Smith, E. E., &Osherson, D. N. (1990). Typicality and reasoning fallacies.Memory & Cognition,18, 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction.Cognitive Psychology,25, 231–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S. A. (1998). Categorical inference is not a tree: The myth of inheritance hierarchies.Cognitive Psychology,35, 1–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sloutsky, V. M. (2003). The role of similarity in the development of categorization.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 246–251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sloutsky, V. M., &Fisher, A. V. (2004). Induction and categorization in young children.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 166–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stangor, C. (2000).Volume overview. InC. Stangor (Ed.),Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings (pp. 1–16). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., &Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgment.British Journal of Psychology,54, 101–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Psychological Review,90, 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, R. R. (1998). How many discoveries have been lost by ignoring modern statistical methods?American Psychologist,53, 300–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamauchi, T. (2005). Labeling bias and categorical induction: Generative aspects of category information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 538–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamauchi, T., &Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 776–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamauchi, T., &Yu, N. Y. (2005). Categories and feature inferences: Category membership and a reasoning bias. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.),Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2404–2409). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamauchi, T., & Yu, N. Y. (2007).Categories versus feature labels: Category labels polarize inferential predictions. Manuscript in preparation.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, Mail Stop 4235, 77843, College Station, TX

    Takashi Yamauchi, Nicholas Kohn & Na-Yung Yu

Authors
  1. Takashi Yamauchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas Kohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Na-Yung Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takashi Yamauchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yamauchi, T., Kohn, N. & Yu, NY. Tracking mouse movement in feature inference: Category labels are different from feature labels. Memory & Cognition 35, 852–863 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193460

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193460

Keywords

Search

Navigation