Conceptual Interrelatedness and Caricatures

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2003 May 17

PMID 12749460

Citations 16

Authors

Robert L Goldstone

Mark Steyvers

Brian J Rogosky

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Concepts are interrelated to the extent that the characterization of each concept is influenced by the other concepts, and are isolated to the extent that the characterization of one concept is independent of other concepts. The relative categorization accuracy of the prototype and caricature of a concept can be used as a measure of concept interrelatedness. The prototype is the central tendency of a concept, whereas a caricature deviates from the concept's central tendency in the direction opposite the central tendency of other acquired concepts. The prototype is predicted to be relatively well categorized when a concept is relatively independent of other concepts, but the caricature is predicted to be relatively well categorized when a concept is highly related to other concepts. Support for these predictions comes from manipulations of the labels given to simultaneously acquired concepts (Experiment 1) and of the order of categories during learning (Experiment 2).

Citing Articles

Context reconsidered: Complex signal ensembles, relational meaning, and population thinking in psychological science.

Barrett L Am Psychol. 2022; 77(8):894-920.

PMID: 36409120 PMC: 9683522. DOI: 10.1037/amp0001054.

The distributional properties of exemplars affect category learning and generalization.

Carvalho P, Chen C, Yu C Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):11263.

PMID: 34050226 PMC: 8163832. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90743-0.

Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements.

Barrett L, Adolphs R, Marsella S, Martinez A, Pollak S Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2019; 20(1):1-68.

PMID: 31313636 PMC: 6640856. DOI: 10.1177/1529100619832930.

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.

Typicality: Stable structures and flexible functions.

Dieciuc M, Folstein J Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 26(2):491-505.

PMID: 30484081 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1546-2.

References

Quillian M . Word concepts: a theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behav Sci. 1967; 12(5):410-30. DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830120511. View

Kruschke J . Base rates in category learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996; 22(1):3-26. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.22.1.3. View

McConnell A, Sherman S, Hamilton D . Illusory correlation in the perception of groups: an extension of the distinctiveness-based account. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994; 67(3):414-29. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.67.3.414. View

Corneille O, Judd C . Accentuation and sensitization effects in the categorization of multifaceted stimuli. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77(5):927-41. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.77.5.927. View

McKenzie C . (Non)complementary updating of belief in two hypotheses. Mem Cognit. 1999; 27(1):152-65. DOI: 10.3758/bf03201221. View

Goldstone R, Rogosky B . Using relations within conceptual systems to translate across conceptual systems. Cognition. 2002; 84(3):295-320. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00053-7. View

McCarthy G, Puce A, Gore J, Allison T . Face-specific processing in the human fusiform gyrus. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 9(5):605-10. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1997.9.5.605. View

Goldstone R, Styvers M . The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001; 130(1):116-39. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.1.116. View

McKone E, Martini P, Nakayama K . Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001; 27(3):573-99. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.27.3.573. View

10.

Rhodes G, Brennan S, Carey S . Identification and ratings of caricatures: implications for mental representations of faces. Cogn Psychol. 1987; 19(4):473-97. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90016-8. View

11.

Clark E . On the pragmatics of contrast. J Child Lang. 1990; 17(2):417-31. DOI: 10.1017/s0305000900013842. View

12.

Niedenthal P, Beike D . Interrelated and isolated self-concepts. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1997; 1(2):106-28. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0102_1. View

13.

Levin D, Beale J . Categorical perception occurs in newly learned faces, other-race faces, and inverted faces. Percept Psychophys. 2000; 62(2):386-401. DOI: 10.3758/bf03205558. View

14.

Solomon K, Barsalou L . Representing properties locally. Cogn Psychol. 2001; 43(2):129-69. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0754. View

15.

Van Wallendael L, Hastie R . Tracing the footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: cognitive representations of hypothesis testing. Mem Cognit. 1990; 18(3):240-50. DOI: 10.3758/bf03213878. View

16.

Krueger J, Rothbart M . Contrast and accentuation effects in category learning. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990; 59(4):651-63. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.59.4.651. View

17.

Palmeri T, Nosofsky R . Central tendencies, extreme points, and prototype enhancement effects in ill-defined perceptual categorization. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001; 54(1):197-235. DOI: 10.1080/02724980042000084. View

18.

Barsalou L . Perceptual symbol systems. Behav Brain Sci. 2001; 22(4):577-609; discussion 610-60. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x99002149. View

19.

Nosofsky R . Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1986; 115(1):39-61. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.115.1.39. View

20.

Posner M, Keele S . On the genesis of abstract ideas. J Exp Psychol. 1968; 77(3):353-63. DOI: 10.1037/h0025953. View