» Articles » PMID: 12199220

Domain Differences in Absolute Judgments of Category Membership: Evidence for an Essentialist Account of Categorization

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2002 Aug 30
PMID 12199220
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

There has been some debate about the correspondence between typicality gradients and category membership. The present study investigates the relationship between these two measures in the domains of animals and artifacts. Forty-two adults judged the degree of typicality or category membership of 293 animals and artifacts. The subjects' tendency for animals, but not for artifacts, was to make more absolute ratings on category membership (i.e., judging exemplars as definitely members or definitely not members of their respective category) than on typicality. More importantly, at almost every level of typicality, subjects were more likely to make absolute judgments of category membership for animals than for artifacts. These results indicate that people treat category membership of animals as relatively absolute (which best fits an essentialist model of categorization) and treat category membership of artifacts as relatively graded (which best fits a prototype model of categorization). These domain differences add crucial supporting evidence for claims about the domain-specificity of essentialism.

Citing Articles

How origin stories shape children's social reasoning.

Foster-Hanson E, Rhodes M Cogn Dev. 2021; 56.

PMID: 34475631 PMC: 8409141. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100962.


Developmental Changes in Strategies for Gathering Evidence About Biological Kinds.

Foster-Hanson E, Moty K, Cardarelli A, Ocampo J, Rhodes M Cogn Sci. 2020; 44(5):e12837.

PMID: 32419146 PMC: 7427470. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12837.


Cognitive Construal-Consistent Instructor Language in the Undergraduate Biology Classroom.

Betz N, Leffers J, Thor E, Fux M, Nesnera K, Tanner K CBE Life Sci Educ. 2019; 18(4):ar63.

PMID: 31782693 PMC: 6889842. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.19-04-0076.


Is the most representative skunk the average or the stinkiest? Developmental changes in representations of biological categories.

Foster-Hanson E, Rhodes M Cogn Psychol. 2019; 110:1-15.

PMID: 30677631 PMC: 6487486. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.12.004.


Challenging Cognitive Construals: A Dynamic Alternative to Stable Misconceptions.

Gouvea J, Simon M CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018; 17(2):ar34.

PMID: 29799316 PMC: 5998328. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.17-10-0214.


References
1.
Kalish C . Essentialism and graded membership in animal and artifact categories. Mem Cognit. 1995; 23(3):335-53. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197235. View

2.
Gelman S, Markman E . Categories and induction in young children. Cognition. 1986; 23(3):183-209. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90034-x. View

3.
KALISH C . Natural and artifactual kinds: are children realists or relativists about categories?. Dev Psychol. 1998; 34(2):376-91. DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.34.2.376. View

4.
Armstrong S, Gleitman L, GLEITMAN H . What some concepts might not be. Cognition. 1983; 13(3):263-308. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4. View

5.
Hampton J . Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories. Cognition. 1998; 65(2-3):137-65. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00042-5. View