DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Modeling feature inference in causal categories

인과적 범주의 속성추론 모델링

  • 김신우 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 이형철 (광운대학교 산업심리학과)
  • Received : 2017.12.15
  • Accepted : 2017.12.18
  • Published : 2017.12.30

Abstract

Early research into category-based feature inference reported various phenomena in human thinking including typicality, diversity, similarity effects, etc. Later research discovered that participants' prior knowledge has an extensive influence on these sorts of reasoning. The current research tested the effects of causal knowledge on feature inference and conducted modeling on the results. Participants performed feature inference for categories consisted of four features where the features were connected either in common cause or common effect structure. The results showed typicality effects along with violations of causal Markov condition in common cause structure and causal discounting in common effect structure. To model the results, it was assumed that participants perform feature inference based on the difference between the probabilities of an exemplar with the target feature and an exemplar without the target feature (that is, $p(E_{F(X)}{\mid}Cat)-p(E_{F({\sim}X)}{\mid}Cat)$). Exemplar probabilities were computed based on causal model theory (Rehder, 2003) and applied to inference for target features. The results showed that the model predicts not only typicality effects but also violations of causal Markov condition and causal discounting observed in participants' data.

범주기반 속성추론에 대한 초기연구들은 전형성, 다양성, 유사성 효과 등 인간 사고에서 나타나는 다양한 현상들을 보고하였다. 이후 연구들은 이러한 추론에서 참가자들의 사전지식이 광범위한 영향을 미친다는 것을 발견하였다. 본 연구에서는 다양한 사전지식들 중 하나인 인과적 지식이 속성추론에 미치는 영향을 검증하고 이를 모델링하였다. 이를 위해 참가자들은 네 개의 속성으로 구성된 범주에서 속성들이 공통원인 혹은 공통효과 인과구조로 연결되었을 때 속성추론과제를 실시하였다. 그 결과 전형성 효과와 더불어 공통원인 구조에서 인과적 마코프 조건(causal Markov condition)에 대한 위배와 공통효과 구조에서 인과적 절감(causal discounting)이 관찰되었다. 이를 모델링하기 위해 참가자들은 표적속성이 존재하는 범주예시와 존재하지 않은 범주예시가 존재할 가능성에 대한 차이값 (즉, $p(E_{F(X)}{\mid}Cat)-p(E_{F({\sim}X)}{\mid}Cat)$에 근거하여 속성추론을 수행한다고 가정하였다. 인과모형이론(Rehder, 2003)에 기반하여 범주예시들의 확률값을 계산한 후 각 표적속성에 대한 추론에 적용하였다. 그 결과 모형은 참가자들의 데이터에서 관찰된 전형성 효과뿐만 아니라 인과적 마코프 조건에 대한 위배 및 인과적 절감을 모두 예측한다는 것이 확인되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, W., & Medin, D. L. (1992). A two-stage model of category construction. Cognitive Science, 16, 81-121. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1601_3
  2. Ahn, W. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality. Cognition, 69, 135-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00063-8
  3. Ahn, W., Kim, N. S., Lassaline, M. E., & Dennis, M. J. (2000). Causal status as a determinant of feature centrality. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 361-416. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2000.0741
  4. Bailenson, J. N., Shum, M. S., Atran, D. L., Medin, J. D., & Coley, J. D. (2002). A bird's eye view:Biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures. Cognition, 84(1), 1-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00011-2
  5. Hadjichristidis, C., Sloman, S. A., Stevenson, R., & Over, D. (2004). Feature centrality and property induction. Cognitive Science, 28, 45-74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2801_2
  6. Hausman, D. M., & Woodward, J. (1999). Independence, invariance and the Causal Markov Condition. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50, 521-583. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/50.4.521
  7. Heit, E., & Rubinstein, J. (1994). Similarity and Property Effects in Inductive Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 411-422.
  8. Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131634
  9. Kim, N. S., Luhmann, C. C., Pierce, M. E., & Ryan, M. M. (2009). The conceptual centrality of causal cycles. Memory & Cognition, 37, 744-758. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.744
  10. Kim, N. S., Yopchick, J. E., & de Kwaadsteniet, L. (2008). Causal diversity effects in information seeking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 81-88. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.81
  11. Morris, M. W., & Larrick, R. P. (1995). When one cause casts doubt on another: A normative analysis of discounting in causal attribution. Psychological Review, 102, 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.331
  12. Lopez, A., Atran, S., Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1997). The tree of life: Universal and cultural features of folkbiological taxonomies and inductions. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 251-295. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0651
  13. Marsh, J., & Ahn, W. (2006). The role of causal status versus inter-feature links in feature weighting. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 561-566). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. Medin, D. L., Coley, J. D., Storms, G., & Hayes, B. K. (2003). A relevance theory of induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 517-532. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196515
  15. Medin, D. L., Wattenmaker, W. D., & Hampson, S. E. (1987). Family resemblance, conceptual cohesiveness, and category construction. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 242-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90012-0
  16. Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.185
  17. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Proffitt, J. B., Coley, J. D., & Medin, D. L. (2000). Expertise and category-based induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 811-828. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.4.811
  19. Rehder, B. (2003). A causal-model theory of conceptual representation and categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1141-1159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1141
  20. Rehder, B. (2006). When causality and similarity compete in category-based property induction. Memory & Cognition, 34, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193382
  21. Rehder, B. (2009). Causal-based property generalization. Cognitive Science, 33, 301-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01015.x
  22. Rehder, B., & Burnett, R. (2005). Feature inference and the causal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 264-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.002
  23. Rehder, B., & Hastie, R. (2004). Category coherence and category-based property induction. Cognition, 91, 113-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00167-7
  24. Rehder, B., & Kim, S. (2006). How causal knowledge affects classification: A generative theory of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 659-683. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.659
  25. Rehder, B., & Kim, S. (2009). Classification as diagnostic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 37, 715-729. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.715
  26. Rehder, B., & Kim, S. (2010). Causal status and coherence in causal-based categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1171-1206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019765
  27. Reichenbach, H. (1956). The direction of time. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  28. Shafto, P., & Coley, J. D. (2003). Development of categorization and reasoning in the natural world:Novices to experts, naive similarity to ecological knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 641-648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.641
  29. Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 231-280. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1006
  30. Sloman, S. A. (1997). Explanatory coherence and the induction of properties. Thinking and Reasoning, 3, 81-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467897394374
  31. Sloman, S. A., Love, B. C., & Ahn, W. (1998). Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive Science, 22, 189-228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_2
  32. Spellman, B. A., Price, C. M., & Logan, J. M. (2001). How two causes are different from one: The use of (un)conditional information in Simpson's Paradox. Memory & Cognition, 29, 193-208. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194913
  33. Springer, K. and Keil, F. C. (1991). Early differentiation of causal mechanisms appropriate to biological and nonbiological kinds. Child Development, 62, 767-781. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131176
  34. Waldmann, M. R., & Hagmayer, Y. (2005). Seeing versus doing: Two modes of accessing causal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.216

Cited by

  1. 인과적 사슬구조에서의 범주기반 속성추론 vol.24, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14695/kjsos.2021.24.1.59