Rich in vitamin C or just a convenient snack? Multiple-category reasoning with cross-classified foods

Hayes, Brett K.; Kurniawan, Hendy; Newell, Ben R.

doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0022-7

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When they were asked to decide the level of amino acids in apples (which are both a fruit and a snack), they showed evidence of using the levels in both categories to produce an answer. The results of Murphy and Ross point out that multiple categories of an item can in some circumstances be simultaneously taken into account and coordinated (see also Hayes, Kurniawan, & Newell, 2011). Therefore, young children must eventually learn not to decide whether an item belongs to one category or the other, but to take both categories into account in making an accurate induction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Inductive Selectivity in Children’s Cross‐Classified Concepts

Nguyen

2012

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-classified items pose an interesting challenge to children’s induction since these items belong to many different categories, each of which may serve as a basis for a different type of inference. Inductive selectivity is the ability to appropriately make different types of inferences about a single cross-classifiable item based on its different category memberships. This research includes five experiments that examine the development of inductive selectivity in 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds (N = 272). Overall, the results show that by age 4 years, children have inductive selectivity with taxonomic and script categories. That is, children use taxonomic categories to make biochemical inferences about an item whereas children use script categories to make situational inferences about an item.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Inductive Selectivity in Children’s Cross‐Classified Concepts

Nguyen

2012

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research has shown that people often show a single-category focus when making inductions about cross-classified items (Murphy & Ross, 1999), and it has been suggested that the activation of one category inhibits activation of other possible categories (Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne, 1995). As when reasoning with uncertain categories, people are able to use category information normatively when making inferences about a cross-classified item (Hayes, Kurniawan, & Newell, 2011), but they often do not. The distinction between implicit and explicit processes may also be useful in characterizing situations when people use category information more normatively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit and explicit processes in category-based induction: Is induction best when we don’t think?

Chen

Ross

Murphy

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In category-based induction (CBI), people use category information to predict unknown properties of exemplars. When an item's classification is uncertain, normative principles and Bayesian models suggest that predictions should integrate information across all possible categories. However, researchers previously have found that people often base their predictions on only a single category. In the present studies, we investigated the possible distinction between implicit and explicit processes in CBI. Predictions of an object's motion took the form of either a catching task (implicit) or a verbal answer (explicit). When subjects made predictions implicitly (Experiment 1), they used categories as Bayesian models predict. Explicit predictions (Experiment 2) showed clearly nonnormative use of categories. This distinction between implicit and explicit processes was replicated with a within-subjects design (Experiment 3). When subjects learned categories implicitly (categories were never mentioned) in Experiment 4, their explicit predictions did not reflect integration of information across categories but again showed a nonnormative pattern of category use. These results provide support for a distinction between implicit and explicit processes in CBI and furthermore suggest that the same category knowledge may result in normative or nonnormative responding, depending on the response mode.

show abstract

“…Category coherence refers to the extent to which category exemplars and/or features are seen to go together in light of theoretical or causal knowledge (Murphy & Medin, 1985). Members of coherent categories typically show high levels of similarity to one another (Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000), and people are more likely to generalize a property from a high-coherence category than from a low-coherence category to a new member (e.g., Hayes, Kurniawan, & Newell, 2011; Patalano & Ross, 2007; Rehder & Hastie, 2004).…”

Section: Category Coherencementioning

confidence: 99%

Feature-based versus category-based induction with uncertain categories.

Griffiths¹,

Hayes²,

Newell³

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has suggested that when feature inferences have to be made about an instance whose category membership is uncertain, feature-based inductive reasoning is used to the exclusion of category-based induction. These results contrast with the observation that people can and do use category-based induction when category membership is known. The present experiments examined the conditions that drive feature-based and category-based strategies in induction under category uncertainty. Specifically, 2 experiments investigated whether reliance on feature-based inductive strategies is a product of the lack of coherence in the categories used in previous research or is due to the use of a decision-only induction procedure. Experiment 1 found that feature-based reasoning remained the preferred strategy even when categories with relatively high internal coherence were used. Experiment 2 found a shift toward category-based reasoning when participants were trained to classify category members prior to feature induction. Together, these results suggest that an appropriate conceptual representation must be formed through experience with a category before it is likely to be used as a basis for feature induction.

show abstract

Rich in vitamin C or just a convenient snack? Multiple-category reasoning with cross-classified foods

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Inductive Selectivity in Children’s Cross‐Classified Concepts

Inductive Selectivity in Children’s Cross‐Classified Concepts

Implicit and explicit processes in category-based induction: Is induction best when we don’t think?

Feature-based versus category-based induction with uncertain categories.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About