Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지

The effect of perceived within-category variability through its examples on category-based inductive generalization

범주예시에 의해 지각된 범주내 변산성이 범주기반 귀납적 일반화에 미치는 효과

  • Lee, Guk-Hee (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Kim, ShinWoo (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Li, Hyung-Chul O. (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University)
  • 이국희 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 김신우 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 이형철 (광운대학교 산업심리학과)
  • Received : 2014.08.01
  • Accepted : 2014.09.06
  • Published : 2014.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Category-based induction is one of major inferential reasoning methods used by humans. This research tested the effect of perceived within-category variability on the inductive generalization. Experiment 1 manipulated variability by directly presenting category exemplars. After displaying low variable (low variability condition) or highly variable exemplars (high variability condition) depending on condition, participants performed inductive generalization task about a category in question. The results showed that participants have greater confidence in generalization when category variability was low than when it was high. Rather than directly presenting category exemplars in Experiment 2, participants performed induction task after they formed category variability impression by categorization task of identifying category exemplars. Experiment 2 also found the tendency that participants have greater inductive confidence when category variability was low. The variability effect discovered in this research is distinct from the diversity effect in previous research and the category-based induction model proposed by Osherson et al. (1990) cannot fully account for the variability effect in this research. Test of variability effect in category-based induction is discussed in the general discussion section.

범주기반 귀납추론은 인간이 사용하는 주요한 추론방법중 하나이다. 본 연구는 지각된 범주내 변산성이 범주기반 귀납적 일반화에 미치는 효과를 검증하기 위해 실시되었다. 실험 1에서는 범주 예시를 직접 제시하여 범주 변산성 지각을 조작하였다. 조건에 따라 범주내 변산성이 낮은 예시들 (낮은 변산 조건) 혹은 높은 예시들 (높은 변산 조건)을 범주의 예로 제시한 후, 해당 범주에 대한 귀납적 일반화 과제를 실시하였다. 그 결과 지각된 범주 변산성이 낮은 조건이 지각된 변산성이 높은 조건보다 귀납적 일반화에 대한 확신이 더 높다는 것을 확인하였다. 실험 2에서는 범주의 예시를 직접 제시하지 않고, 다양한 예시들 중 특정 범주에 속하는 예들을 참가자들이 변별하는 범주화 과제를 실시함으로써 범주 변산성을 지각하도록 한 후, 귀납추론 과제를 실시하였다. 그 결과, 실험 1과 마찬가지로 지각된 범주 변산성이 낮은 조건이 높은 조건보다 귀납적 일반화에 대한 확신이 더 강해지는 경향을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구의 결과는 기존 연구에서 보여준 다양성 효과와 차이점을 보이며 또한 Osherson과 동료들 (1990)이 제안한 귀납추론 모형으로는 설명하기 어렵다. 종합논의에서 범주기반 귀납추론에서 지각된 변산성 효과의 검증에 대해 간략히 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629-654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.629
  2. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
  3. Feeney, A., Gardiner, D. R. (2002). Category size and category-based induction. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ: LEA, 292-297.
  4. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90246-9
  5. Lopez, A. (1995). The diversity principle in the testing of arguments. Memory & Cognition, 23(3), 374-382. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197238
  6. McCloskey, M. E., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory & Cognition, 6, 462-472. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197480
  7. Malt, B. C., Ross, B. H, & Murphy. G. L. (1995). Predicting Features for Members of Natural Categories When Categorization Is Uncertain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 646-662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.646
  8. Murphy, G. L., & Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.70
  9. Murphy, G. L., & Ross, B. H. (1994). Predictions from uncertain categorizations. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 148-193. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1015
  10. Murphy, G. L., & Ross, B. H. (2010a). Category vs. object knowledge in category-based induction. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.002
  11. Murphy, G. L., & Ross, B. H. (2010b). Uncertainty in category-based induction: When do people integrate across categories? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 263-276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018685
  12. Murphy, G. L., Chen, S. Y., & Ross, B. H. (2012). Reasoning with uncertain categories Thinking & Reasoning, 18(1), 81-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2011.650506
  13. Nisbett R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heutistics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90(4), 339-363. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.339
  14. Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97(2), 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.185
  15. Patalano, A. L., Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H. (2006). The importance of being coherent: Category coherence, cross-classification, and reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.10.005
  16. Patalano, A. L. & Ross, B. H. (2007). The role of category coherence in experience-based prediction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 629-634. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196812
  17. Rips, L. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 665-681. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80055-7
  18. Rein, J. R., Goldwater, M. B., & Markman, A. B. (2010). What is typical about the typicality effect in category-based induction?. Memory & Cognition, 38, 377-388. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.377
  19. Rehder, B. & Hastie, R. (1996). The moderating influence of variability on belief revision. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 499-503. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214554
  20. Rhodes, M., & Brickman, D. (2010). The rold of within-category variability in category-based induction: A developmental study. Cognitive Science, 34, 1561-1573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01137.x
  21. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
  22. Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Category-based predictions: The influence of uncertainty and feature associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 736-753. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.736
  23. Thagard, P., & Nisbett R. E. (1982). Variability and Confirmation. Philosophical Studies, 42, 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00714369
  24. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology, 5(2), 207-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9