Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Psychological Essentialism and Category Representation

심리적 본질주의와 범주표상

  • Kim, ShinWoo (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Jo, Jun-Hyoung (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Li, Hyung-Chul O. (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University)
  • 김신우 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 조준형 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 이형철 (광운대학교 산업심리학과)
  • Received : 2021.05.17
  • Accepted : 2021.05.17
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Psychological essentialism states that people believe some categories to have hidden and defining essential features which cause other features of the category (Gelman, 2003; Hirschfeld, 1996; Medin & Ortony, 1989). Essentialist belief on categories questions the Roschian argument (Rosch, 1973, 1978) that categories merely consist of clusters of correlated features. Unlike family resemblance categories, essentialized categories are likely to have clear between-category boundaries and high within-category coherence (Gelman, 2003; Prentice & Miller, 2007). Two experiments were conducted to test the effects of essentialist belief on category representation (i.e., between-category boundary, within-category coherence). Participants learned family resemblance and essentialized categories in their assigned conditions and then performed categorization task (Expt. 1) and frequency estimation task of category exemplars (Expt. 2). The results showed, in essentialized categories, both boundary intensification and greater category coherence. Theses results are likely to have arisen due to increased cue and category validity in essentialized categories and suggest that essentialist belief influences macroscopic representation of category structure.

심리적 본질주의에 따르면 사람들은 어떤 범주를 규정하는 숨겨진 본질 속성(essential properties)이 있으며 이것이 그 범주가 가지는 전형적 속성들의 인과적 원인이라는 믿음을 가진다(Gelman, 2003; Hirschfeld, 1996; Medin & Ortony, 1989). 이러한 본질주의적인 믿음은 범주가 단순히 상관을 가진 속성의 집합("clusters of correlated features")이라고 제안한 Rosch (1973, 1978)의 주장에 의문을 제기한다. 속성의 통계적 상관, 즉 가족 유사성만을 가진 범주와 달리 본질화된 범주는 범주간 경계가 매우 뚜렷하며 범주내 개체들이 동질적으로 여겨질 가능성이 높기 때문이다(Gelman, 2003; Prentice & Miller, 2007). 본질주의적 믿음이 범주 표상(범주간 경계, 범주내 응집성)에 미치는 영향을 확인하기 위해 두 개의 실험을 실시했다. 참가자들은 조건에 따라 가족 유사성 범주와 본질화된 범주를 학습한 다음 범주화 과제(실험 1)와 범주 예시들의 빈도 추정 과제(실험 2)를 실시했다. 그 결과 본질화된 범주에서 범주간 경계가 더 뚜렷해졌으며 범주내 응집성이 높아졌다. 이 결과는 범주 속성의 단서 타당도와 범주 타당도가 증가하여 발생한 것으로 본질주의적인 믿음이 범주구조의 거시적인 표상에 중요한 영향을 미친다는 것을 보여준다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2019년도 광운대학교 교내 학술연구비 지원에 의해 연구되었음.

References

  1. 도은영, 이국희 (2020). 범주 응집성과 기저율의 상호작용이 선호의 이유 추정에 미치는 효과. 인지과학, 31(3), 77-102. https://doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2020.31.3.2
  2. 신현정 (2011). 개념과 범주적 사고 학지사.
  3. 양현보, 김비아, 이동훈 (2020). 혼합정서 얼굴표정의 범주적 지각에 미치는 정서명칭 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 32(2), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.22172/COGBIO.2020.32.2.009
  4. 최인범, 이형철, 김신우 (2021). 인과적 사슬구조에서의 범주기반 속성추론. 감성과학, 24(1), 59-72.
  5. Ahn, W. K., Taylor, E. G., Kato, D., Marsh, J. K., & Bloom, P. (2013). Causal essentialism in kinds. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 66(6), 1113-1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.730533
  6. Bourne, L. E. (1970). Knowing and using concepts. Psychological Review, 77(6), 546-556. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030000
  7. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. John Wiley and Sons.
  8. Davoodi, T., Soley, G., Harris, P. L., & Blake, P. R. (2020). Essentialization of Social Categories Across Development in Two Cultures. Child development, 91(1), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13209
  9. Eberhardt, J. L. & Randall, J. L. (1997). The essential notion of face. Psychological Science, 8(3), 198-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00412.x
  10. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the nonobvious. Cognition, 38(3), 213-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90007-Q
  11. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23(3), 183-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90034-X
  12. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: The origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Harris, H. D., & Rehder, B. (2006). Modeling category learning with exemplars and prior knowledge. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1440-1445). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164363
  15. Hirschfeld, L. A. (1996). Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and the child's construction of human kinds. The MIT Press.
  16. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Kikutani, M., Roberson, D., & Hanley, J. R. (2008). What's in the name? Categorical perception for unfamiliar faces can occur through labeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 787-794. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.787
  18. Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S., & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(5), 358-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044417
  19. Lisker, L. & Abramson, A. S. (1964) A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops: Acoustical Measurements. WORD, 20(3), 384-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830
  20. Luhmann, C. C., Ahn, W.-K., & Palmeri, T. J. (2006). Theory-based categorization under speeded conditions. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1102-1111. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193256
  21. Malt, B. C. (1994). Water is not H2O. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 41-70. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1011
  22. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (p. 179-195). Cambridge University Press.
  23. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Belknap Press.
  24. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. MIT Press.
  25. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289-316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.289
  26. Newman, G. E. (2019). The psychology of authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000158
  27. Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5
  28. Palmeri, T. J., & Blalock, C. (2000). The role of background knowledge in speeded perceptual categorization. Cognition, 77(2), B45-B57.
  29. Patalano, A. L., & Ross, B. H. (2007). The role of category coherence in experience-based prediction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 629-634. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196812
  30. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(3, Pt.1), 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025953
  31. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1970). Retention of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83(2, Pt.1), 304-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028558
  32. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism on human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 202-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00504.x
  33. Rehder, B. (2007). Essentialism as a generative theory of classification. In A. Gopnik, & L. Schultz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 190-207). Oxford University Press.
  34. Rehder, B., & Kim, S. (2009). Classification as diagnostic reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 37(6), 715-729. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.37.6.715
  35. Rehder, B., & Murphy, G. L. (2003). A knowledge-resonance (KRES) model of category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 759-784. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196543
  36. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21-59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0
  38. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
  39. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In: E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 28-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  40. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
  41. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x
  42. Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (p. 11-36). Sage Publications, Inc.
  43. Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81(3), 214-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036351
  44. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Macmillan.
  45. Yuill, N. (1992). Children's conception of personality traits. Human Development, 35(5), 265-279. https://doi.org/10.1159/000277220