1
Q
ur interactions with
the world r flooded with colours, shapes, textures, smells, tastes & sounds, & yet u r still able to make sense of it all & take appropriate action. How is this possible?
A
- Part of ans comes from 2 cognitive mechanisms:
1) Attention, which helps
u to focus finite mental resources on key parts of the active scene
2) memory which recalls specific thoughts & behaviours appropriate to ur current needs.
–> However, attention & memory r just part of the story. - Enter new hero into our MacIntroPsych universe: ur cognitive ability to sort people, objects and ideas into categories & concepts helps u to efficiently process through the incoming data stream & make appropriate responses.
–> Categorization allows u to treat members of the same category similarly & make predictions regarding new category members. –> This leads u to react efficiently & appropriately to ur current
needs.
2
Q
Categorization
A
- The act of assigning an item to a particular category. It involves grouping objects, events, & ideas together.
- Humans r intuitive categorizers, able to assign labels to things with little apparent effort.
3
Q
A category is
A
A set of objects or events in the real world that r grouped together, often on the basis of similarity.
4
Q
Concepts are
A
A mental representation of a category.
- It is abstract.
–> Categories & concepts r words that r sometimes used interchangeably.–> However, it is important to understand their distinction.
5
Q
categories r ___________.
A
artificial
- nothing written in the laws of physics that says that some objects r tables & others r chairs–> these r functional distinctions that our minds make, helping us know which objects to sit on & which to place cutlery on to.
- We’re not perfectly consistent categorizers, cuz there r few perfectly consistent categories
6
Q
Without the cognitive ability to categorize,…
A
…every sensory experience would be completely unique.
- u would be lost in an ocean of experiences, unable to draw connections with the past & being forced to make unique decisions on
even the most routine actions.
- categorization happens so seamlessly, it’s easy to take for granted
7
Q
categorization & drinking example
A
- Perhaps u wake in the morning, & ur head is throbbing, related to celebration activities from the previous evening. What should you do? Do u decide to take medicine?
- If so, do u take penicillin, aspirin, or something else?
–> By placing ur current situation into the category ‘hangover’ for which u have had previous experience, u conclude that ur current condition is best treated with aspirin, plenty of water, & most of all quiet. - Humans are intuitively good at making these judgments quickly. –> Ex, is a pizza slice a sandwich?
8
Q
Psychologists have defined 3 basic functions of categorization: List Them
A
- classification, understanding, &
communication.
–> Our abilities to classify diff things as belonging to the same category, understand how things in that category tend to work, & communicate knowledge of categories to 1 another r all essential in letting us function day-to-day.
9
Q
BASIC FUNCTIONS OF CATEGORIZATION: Classification
A
- The ability to classify dissimilar objects together in the same group.
–> Ex, Green apples, red apples, & yellow apples appear diff on a colour dimension but by classifying them all as ‘apples’ u can treat them similarly
–> means we can generalize our knowledge of a large black dog to a small white dog. –> if u know that the large black dog needs exercise & barks, u can infer that the small white dog would also need exercise & bark. –> . While there r individual diffs, classification provides the framework for generalizing our knowledge to diff category members so we can treat them as being the same in important ways, despite superficial, visual differences.
10
Q
BASIC FUNCTIONS OF CATEGORIZATION: Understanding
A
- The ability to evaluate a situation & act appropriately based on prior experiences.
–> Ex, if we categorize a scene of 2 people shouting as a private conflict, based on our prior experience, we immediately understand that they prob don’t need our opinion
11
Q
BASIC FUNCTIONS OF CATEGORIZATION: Communication
A
- The ability to describe complex ideas or objects using a single label
- Many words in our language refer to some type of category or concept
(Ex: furniture, cat, sport, or classroom), & using the category name allows for efficient communication. –> Imagine how slow it’ll be if u have to fully describe the meaning of everything u were saying in a convo
–> u can see the extent of this automatic categorization
process when people of specialized fields speak using technical jargon. –> think of drs (my note) - would be very difficult, if not impossible, to categorize without our ability to communicate.–> categories immediately give u a wealth of information without having to explicitly say it
12
Q
Illusion of the Expert
A
- The feeling that a task must be simple for everyone cuz it’s simple for oneself.
–> Ex, classifying a pic of oranges, apples, strawberries, etc as fruit. –> This process seems to happen automatically, operating outside of our conscious awareness. (due to experience? –> I think?)
–> This relative ease may lead u to assume that categorization must be a simple process. –> In
fact, categorization is a very complex field with a # of conflicting theories seeking to explain the ease with which humans r able to categorize.
13
Q
categorization is as simple as applying a set of rules. Why is this wrong?
A
- Ex, u might think that all turtles have a shell, so when u see something with a shell, u categorize it as a turtle.
–> But is this simple rule sufficient? Can you think of any exceptions? Like an oyster - Imaging u r trying to teach an android with sophisticated artificial intelligence, how to categorize objects as effortlessly as humans do. –> Ex, try defining criteria for sports to AI
14
Q
The Classical View
A
-The classical view of categories is that for every category, there is a set of rules that define it.
–> this is only true for few categories
–> Ex, Even #s is a category that can be easily defined by a rule but its harder to create rules for a category like musical instruments
- Some may argue that u can categorize an object like ‘racoon’ by using its DNA as its def.–>But this doesn’t capture how we categorize in the real world; we need only to see a racoon to categorize it as such.–> Rules aren’t sufficient to explain categorization.
15
Q
Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Categorization
A
- most of recent history, AI categorizes only via rules
–> this is taken advantage of with CAPTCHAs (Completely Automatic Public Turing Test to Tell Computer & Human Apart).–> when u log onto website & r presented with grid of photos & instructions such as “Select all images with a bus. Click verify once there r none left”. –> These types of CAPTCHAs tell humans apart from computer programs based on categorization.
–> Since humans don’t rely on rules, but AI does, humans reign supreme @ categorizing. - CAPTCHAs r like “reverse turing test”
16
Q
How r humans better @ categorization than AI
A
- not needing to operate via predefined rules confers many advantages to human categorization.
–> For one, we r more flexible with our categorization than AI. –> we can consider background knowledge & situational context (along with other factors) that allow us to be flexible in our categorization.
–> also humans r better @ ambiguous categorization. –> While it cannot be adequately captured via rules, humans can make educational guesses to deal with categorizing ambiguous stimuli.
–> humans can recognize many small diffs that r currently too fine grained for most AI.
–> another advantage of not needing rules to create categories is that humans can form new categories on the fly. –> AI, on the other hand, cannot create a novel category without predefined rules.
17
Q
However, tech is changing at a rapid pace, & AI has made immense progress in the area of categorization. Elaborate
A
- 1 reason for this is machine learning.–> With machine learning, AI can learn without needing a specifically preprogrammed set of rules to recognize each category.
- Instead, we can create an immense dataset of “cars” & allow the AI to recognize the patterns in the dataset itself & improve its ability to categorize over time.–> In fact, every time u complete a CAPTCHA, u r helping train AI in its ability to categorize.
–> this is why CAPTCHAs r becoming increasingly difficult?–> This mode of categorization is akin to the exemplar theory of categorization
18
Q
AI categorization certainly has its advantages
A
- can categorize large volumes of data more quickly than humans can, making AI more efficient at categorization.
- However, today’s AI still requires human oversight to ensure accuracy, & is still relying on predefined rules.
–> While this may change in the near future, as of 2023, categorization is one area where humans have the upper hand.
19
Q
Family Resemblance
A
-The idea that members of a category share overlapping features, even though each individual feature may not be shared amongst all members.
–> Ex, u & sis have curly hair like mother, but brother & dad don’t. –> but u still look like ur brother, cuz u share same eye colour, & u look like ur father, cuz u share his smaller ears. –> While there r no defining features shared by all fam members, it is still clear that there is a family resemblance.
–> Family resemblance suggests that all members of a category resemble one another.–> there r overlapping similarities that allow us to group the fam into 1 cohesive category.
-Psych Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed that category membership similarly operates on the idea of family resemblance –> Ex, may not any defining feature shared by all musical instruments, but there r certainly common features that link together large subsets of this category–> with enough family resemblances, u can assemble a relatively coherent idea of “musical instruments” that lets u categorize effectively.
–> Wittgenstein’s ideas gave rise to some more modern theories of concept formation & categorization.
20
Q
Lee Brooks experiment
A
- Lee Brooks was a prof emeritus of psychology @ Mac
- Brooks asked 1st & 2nd year students the same questions u were asked – r there some set of features u can use to identify a new member of a given category?
- 84% said they can come up with def for table –> One rule might be: a flat board with four legs. –> But, does this rule allow u to include coffee tables & pedestal tables in the same category?
–> Does it also exclude a bed, a counter, or an ironing board? - Does ur rule include baby bottles & pill bottles but exclude jars, glasses or
cartons?
21
Q
Lee Brooks experiment takeaways
A
-While it can be difficult to establish clear rules for these categories, we still find that
categorizing objects is an easy task & doesn’t require much thought.
–> For simple categories we r more susceptible to the illusion of the expert, & a greater percentage of people report that they would
be able to come up with a simple classification rule.
- However, if u consider the more complex categories like fruit & furniture, you can see a decrease in the # of people who report being able
to identify a simple categorization rule.
–> Ofc, we can understand even more complicated ideas such as beauty, freedom or justice, & it’s much more difficult to devise simple rules to define these more
abstract categories. I
–> imagine trying to explain to an android the categorization rules for an abstract concept such as irony or the perfect person to date
22
Q
Levels of categorization: order from easiest to most difficult
A
basic, superordinate, subordinate
23
Q
compare diff levels of categorization
A
BASIC
- simplest level of categorization we start using
- Ex, cats & dogs
- we have the most experience with this one
SUPERORDINATE
- more complex ideas
- Ex, animals
- high chance for accuracy (cuz more general) & low predictive power
SUBORDINATE
- with additional life experience & expertise
- Ex, diff breeds of dogs
- Low chance for accuracy & high predictive power
- we choose depending on who we r taking to
24
Q
Expertise increases speed of subordinate category verification
A
- in terms of reaction time, while their superordinate reaction time is pretty close to the average person, their reaction time for basic and subordinate (in their area of expertise ofc) is low and almost the same
25
Prototype Theory
- We categorize objects by comparing them to an internal ‘best’ representation of a given category --> When we encounter a new stimulus, we compare it to all our prototypes to find the closest match.
- Prototypes r thought to be the average, or ‘best’ member of a category.--> for fruit, an image of an apple or an orange came to mind. --> Each of us has a prototype that quickly comes to mind for a particular category.
-it may be hard to define rules to properly include & exclude items for category
membership, yet when given a test stimulus, you can effortlessly decide membership. --> suggested to
some psychs that humans have an internal representation of categories that is INDEPENDENT of the
explicit rules we use try to define membership.
26
Prototypes r formed through...
experience & can be very personal cuz all the objects you’ve previously encountered r averaged together
--> Ex, ur bird prototype might look like a robin cuz u’ve seen a lot of birds that look similar to robins in ur lifetime. -->but, if u have never seen a robin before & grew up in an environment containing many tropical birds, ur prototype
would be the average of those colourful birds
--> important to note averaging the qualities of several birds might make a bizarre prototype that
doesn't acc exist in the real world. --> To illustrate, imagine u have seen many robins & many blue jays in ur lifetime.
--> ur prototype may be just 1 of these 2 birds. But could also be a unique hybrid of the 2. --> This is fine; a prototype doesn't need to exist in the real world to serve as an
internal representation for categorization.
27
SLIDES: prototypes can be directly formed through instruction or indirectly through inductive learning. Elaborate
- Prototype r often easy to classify & rmr even if the prototype is never seen during learning.
--> when doing the dots thing, we formed a sort of new prototype in our brain for category A & B
ASKING IF OLD (ALREADY SEEN) OR NEW DOT PATTERN
- acc old are identified about 90% of time
- for new items, the closer the distortion is to the acc prototype for A or B, the more likely u were to label it old & vice versa
28
Graded Membership
- Prototype works on what is known as graded membership
- idea that some category members r more representative of a category than others cuz they r closer in degree to the category prototype.
--> Ex, consider the category ‘furniture’. If ‘chair’ is ur prototype, there may be graded membership in which sofa is a better member than ‘dresser’ which is a better member than ‘mirror’.
29
Borderline members
- Category members that do not clearly belong inside or outside of a particular category.
--> Ex, some objects may just barely be considered furniture, or just barely be considered not a member of the category.
- There is often much disagreement between diff people about category membership--> u may assert that ‘fishing’ is a sport, but ur friend might disagree.
30
Evidence for Graded Membership & Borderline Members
ROSCH & MERVIS (1975)
- Which of following items would u consider furniture rank from ‘best’ to ‘worst’: picture, chair, lamp, bookcase, desk, vase, stove, table, rug, cushion, table
--> Rosch & Mervis asked research participants to do this task--> showed evidence for graded membership & demoed that some category members r borderline – u may feel that some of these items should not fall into the category ‘furniture’ at all.
--> typical result: Chair, table, desk, bookcase, lamp, cushion, rug, stove, picture, vase
McCloskey & Glucksberg (1978)
- asked participants to judge category membership twice, 2 weeks apart.
- When asked questions about borderline members, such as “is a mushroom a vegetable?” or “is air pollution a weather phenomenon?” people changed their minds up to 22% of the time.
--> demos that people don’t just disagree with others about borderline members, but also with themselves--> All this evidence about borderline membership has led researchers to agree that categories r fuzzy, without distinct borders.
31
What evidence supports the prototype theory?
- In a classic study, participants were asked to verify whether a series of statements were true or not.
--> To statements like “A robin is a bird” participants responded very quickly.
--> but when asked to verify the statement “A penguin is a bird” participants responded significantly slower.
--> This suggests that more typical category members which r likely closer
to the prototype, r categorized more quickly & easily than r atypical category members.
32
Evidence against prototype theory
- there is some evidence indicating that it can't explain all findings.
-->Ex, if I asked u to write down ur 'prototypical' fruit, bird, chair, house, pet, & book & then ask the same question a week later, there is a good chance that you may give diff ans.
-->If we r indeed comparing our experiences to an
internal prototype, we should expect it to be stable over time.
- why prototypes should stay relatively stable over time?
--> think of GPA, one additional course won't shift it too much --> similar logic applies to prototype theory:
The more prior cases of a category u've experienced, the less likely 1 new case is to shift ur prototype.--> but, this isn’t what we see. Instead, prototypes shift constantly, suggesting that there may be more to the story here when it comes to categorization.
33
Exemplar Theory
- We categorize objects by comparing them to every previously stored
experience (exemplar) in a given category
- Prototype theory suggests we store 1 internal average of a category that is compared to a new experience to determine category membership.
- In contrast exemplar theory, suggests that instead of storing only 1 average category prototype, u store ur entire lifetime’s worth of
experiences. --> , u quickly search through ur library of exemplars to compare it to the current object. --> Once u find the exemplar that is sufficiently similar to the current object, u identify
it as being a member of the same category & it becomes a new exemplar that we can use to categorize further stimuli.
--> Ex, instead of rmring just 1 prototype of dog to compare with, Exemplar Theory suggests that u remember every dog u’ve ever met
- Each of these past instances of category membership= an Exemplar.
34
old item advantage effect
- The phenomenon whereby it is easier to categorize already known items compared to new items with the same typicality.--> it's easier (& faster) to categorize already known items compared to new items that r equally similar to one’s prototype.
-1 advantage exemplar theory has over prototype theory is that it explains the ‘old item advantage effect'
--> Ex, my dog is a particularly unique looking dog. I would still very quickly categorize him as a dog, even if he didn't closely match my prototype. But, if I see another equally unique looking dog, I would be slower at making the same category judgement. In this case, both dogs r unique & equally far away from the theoretical prototype
-->prototype theory can't explain why I'm faster @ categorizing my dog as a dog.
--> But, exemplar theory, which presumes that I have many exemplars of my dog belonging to the category ‘dog,’ & no exemplars of this new unique dog, would suggest that I would be faster @ categorizing my own dog.
35
Exemplar Theory: revisiting bird example
- “A robin is a bird” was verified faster than the statement “a penguin is a bird,” a finding originally explained by the similarity of a robin to many people's bird
prototype.
- If you grew up in North America, a robin would be similar to your average bird prototype cuz of many experiences u likely had with this common bird species throughout ur life.
- according to Exemplar Theory, it’s simply a #s game. --> It’s not that the robin looks very similar to ur averaged bird prototype, but rather that u have many more robin exemplars in memory than for more atypical exemplars, like a penguin.--> so, when asked to verify statements involving robins & penguins, u will be able to retrieve a robin exemplar much more quickly.
- if u grew up in Antarctica, we may have to rethink our predictions...
36
What evidence supports the Exemplar theory?
- evidence comes from research on medical diagnosis
- Diagnosticians r in business of categorization, noting symptoms & observations to correctly categorize disease to
determine an appropriate treatment.
- 1991 study from Brooks, Norman & Allen of Mac looked at how expert categorization is influenced by factors relating to prototype & exemplar theory.
- Experienced derms were asked to diagnose patients by observing a series of slides of skin disorders. --> after 2 week delay, they returned to diagnose a 2nd series of slides.--> The experts weren't told, but some of the disorders were repeated in the 2nd session but using
diff slides.
- The question was: Would the inclusion of a single exemplar 2 weeks earlier improve
their accuracy?
- Prototype theory suggest that single case would simply be blended into averaged prototype, & thus have no effect on improving accuracy.
-->but exemplar theory would suggest that any increase to the # of relevant exemplars would improve categorization performance. --> In fact, on the 2nd series, these experts were 20% more accurate if they were exposed to a single exemplar 2 weeks before.
--> Even after seeing 100s of cases in their careers, these experts were using the most readily available Exemplar from memory.
37
Which is better: Prototype theory or exemplar theory?
- Exemplar theory provides more compelling account of human categorization ability
--> While both prototype & exemplar theory can explain why we respond faster to more representative members of a category, only exemplar theory can explain why a single encounter with a
category member changes our categorization patterns.
-But prototype theory does have its advantages: there is some evidence to suggest that prototype theory may provide a better explanation
of simple categorization than exemplar theory.
--> In the end, there’s still much work to be done before we fully understand the mechanics of human categorization.
38
A hybrid theory
- While prototype & exemplar theory r often presented as opposing explanations for categorization, they work in much the same way. --> In both instances, an uncategorized stimulus is compared to instances in memory & a category judgement is made on the BASES OF SIMILARITY.
- diff is the # of things the new stimuli r being compared to: is it only 1 “ideal” member or is it every instance in memory?
- It's likely the case that we use both prototype & exemplar theory in our daily lives. --> 1 theory suggests that, when we don't have a lot of knowledge of a particular category, we rely on a prototype.
--> But, if we r an expert on a category, & have a lot of exemplars to draw on, we may be more likely to rely on exemplar theory when making a category judgement or drawing on knowledge about that category.
- Whether we use prototype or exemplar theory may also depend on the size of the category & how distinct the members r. --> If individual members are unique, we may be more likely to rely on exemplars; a single prototype may not be able to capture the nuances.
- Whether we use prototype or exemplar theory may also depend on the size of the category & how distinct the members r.
--> If individual members r unique, we may be more likely to rely on exemplars; a single prototype may not be able to capture the nuances.
39
Typicality
-Central to our idea of prototype & exemplar theory
-How representative a category member is of that particular category.
- We have discussed how this is the case with prototype theory: members that our closer to our prototype will be more ‘typical’ than members further from our prototype.
- this can also be explained via exemplar theory, with the idea that items that have more exemplars will be considered more typical.
- Typicality ratings can show which members we consider to be “better” category members
- Sometimes, we can include something in a category without typicality.
- Other times, we can exclude something from a category even though it has a high degree typicality.
40
Sentence verification task
- BACKGROUND: Typicality ratings r common when looking @ research on categorization.--> Research posits that items that have higher ratings of typicality will be categorized more quickly.
- An experimental procedure in which participants r presented with a sentence & must determine whether that sentence is true or false as quickly as possible.
-->Ex, participants were much faster @ agreeing with the statement “A German Shepherd is a dog” than the statement “An Afghan Hound is a dog”, suggesting that ‘German Shepherd’ is a better member of the category ‘dog’ than an Afghan Hound.--> may occur cuz a German Shepherd more closely resembles their prototype than an Afghan Hound.
- According to prototype theory, people may've responded more quickly to the sentence about the German Shepherd than the Afghan Hound cuz German Shepherds r closer to their prototype.
- According to exemplar theory, meanwhile, this occurs cuz they have more German Shepherd exemplars than Afghan Hound exemplars. --> Thus, German Shepherd exemplars can be retrieved from memory more quickly.
- The bottom line is that when we r judging category membership based on resemblance, typicality largely influences the speed at which we can categorize, & thus these results provide support for both prototype & exemplar theory.
41
ill-defined category
-A category that can't be defined using rules. Most categories r ill-defined.
--> Ex, dogs.
42
well-defined category
-A category that can be defined using rules.
43
But do we still have notions of typicality for well-defined categories?
- In 1 study, researchers gave these instructions to a group of participants: “We all know that some #s r even-er than others. What I want u to do is to rate each of the #s on this list for how good an example it's for the category ‘even #.’”
-these instructions r weird cuz we know that something is clearly an even # if is divisible by 2 with a remainder of 0.
--> Yet, participants were able to complete this task, with a substantial amount of consensus between participants’ ratings.
--> ex when given given the #s 34,18,10,106,4,8, & asked to sort on scale of 0-7 where 7 is ‘very typical’ & 0 is ‘not at all typical’ --> 4 rating=5.9, 8
rating=5.5, 10 rating=5.3, 18 rating=4.4, 34 rating=3.6, 106 rating=3.1
- It seems then, that typicality can be used for judgements even for well-defined categories.
44
Categorizing Without Typicality: Essentialism Background
- Typicality can be extremely helpful when making a category judgement.-->But sometimes, category judgements r independent of typicality.
--> Ex, in cases where we judge as being a member of a particular category even tho it doesn't resemble other members of that category or when we judge something as not being a part of a particular category even tho it resembles members of that category
--> Ex, sea fan may resemble your mental conception of a ‘plant’, or ‘fungus’ with its rooted-to-the-ground base & branching structure --> even tho it’s likely very far from ur animal prototypes & exemplars it's technically an animal & more closely related to us than any kind of plant
- Making typicality assessments to categorize stimuli is fast & automatic; it requires real cognitive effort to override those assessments to properly categorize.
-On the other hand, there r instances where we can categorize easily without typicality. --> Ex, if I take red apple & paint blue, it doesn’t look like apple u’ve seen before, but u will still easily categorize it as an apple. -->, if inject the apple with blueberry flavoured syrup. most would agree that this is still an apple.--> if I throw it in the blender. While it’s certainly not a traditional apple, & u may specify that it is a “blueberry-flavoured, blue-coloured apple puree”, u r still putting it in apple category
45
Essentialism is
-The belief that members of a category have deep underlying properties that cause them to be in that category.
-->categorization seems to depend on a category’s fundamental properties, & not how much they resemble a particular prototype or exemplar
- Essentialism is more relevant for natural kinds opposed to man-made artifacts
-->Children also show this same pattern.
46
natural kinds
-Objects that exist in the natural world.
- This includes plants, animals, & non-living things such as rocks & water bodies.
- We believe that natural kinds possess deep qualities that make them a category member, even if these deep properties cannot be seen
- As a result, natural kind categories r fixed, &ƒ no alterations will change their category membership. --> This is contrasted with man-made categories
47
man-made artifacts
- Objects that r not naturally occurring.
48
How do we develop the ability to categorize: Children
- There is evidence to suggest that children as young as 3 can understand general categories (can't before 3). --> if u teach Katie new fact about her dog, she can generalize that fact to diff dogs, even if they don't look exactly similar to her own dog. --> if Katie learns that her dog likes
doggie treats, she can generalize this fact to other dogs she sees.
- gives us evidence that children understand something about category membership--> members of the same categories share similar characteristics.
- 3 years also seem to have a deeper understanding of categories. --> Ex, u present the following strange question to a child: “If I took a toaster, plugged up all of its
holes, put a container in it, and put a spout on the side, do you think I could make work like a teapot?”
--> The child might look at u quizzically, but in the end they will generally agree that it is possible.--> If you fix up a toaster so that it doesn’t leak & can keep liquids warm, & u give it a spout, u could
perhaps theoretically turn it into a teapot.
- if u ask child diff puzzle: "take raccoon, paint black with white stripes & give smelly spray bottle, can I turn it into skunk" --> This time, the child may not agree that this is possible -->ex of excluding something from a category (namely the category “raccoon”) even though it bears a resemblance.
--> y do they give diff response to hypothetical problems involving machines
& animals?--> seems like children r able to understand something about the innate properties of a given category. --> In this case, u might be able to change the nature of a machine, but u can't change the nature of an animal.
- suggests that people reason differently about natural kinds & man-made objects, & that this emerges from early on in life.--> these children & adults easily grasp the concept of ESSENTIALISM & can ignore a lack of resemblance for NATURAL-KINDS, understanding that there is an unchanging property that makes a natural-kind a member of its category.
49
How do we develop the ability to categorize: Children conclusion
- While we don’t yet fully understand how normal adult categorization operates, our understanding of
categorization in children is even more limited.
--> A growing literature describes what children can &
cannot do at particular ages, & this info may help us to understand how categorization functions throughout the lifespan.
50
Knowledge & Categorization Working Together
- Knowledge about essential properties is necessary for categorizing without typicality --> in cow with zebra stripes & blue & blueberry-flavoured apple puree examples, although these members do not resemble their prototypes or exemplars, we r still easily able to categorize them
-knowledge also helps us categorize even when there is resemblance.--> We draw on our knowledge to focus on what features r important when making a category judgement & to ignore the nonessential features.
--> Ex, if u r asked to judge if a new object is a piece of furniture, what questions would u ask to determine this? --> u may ask what the function of this object was or examine the material it’s made from. ur knowledge would guide u to examine the features u believe r essential --> u would ignore the qualities u do not feel r essential to the category ‘furniture’ like smell
-The features we examine when making category judgements r guided by prior knowledge. --> thus, knowledge is essential for categorizing relying on essentialism, but also when we r categorizing via resemblance.
51
Categories in the Brain
- Research has shown that diff areas of our brain r responsible for diff things.
-->There is an area of our brain responsible for processing sight, a separate area for processing noise, a separate area for reasoning through complex problems, & so on. --> The fact that diff areas of our brain r responsible for diff things allows us to learn a lot about categorization.
- Imagine a cat. imagine a hammer. Congrats! u have now activated 2 diff regions in ur visual cortex, which is the area of the brain that processes visual info.--> Research has shown that diff types of categories r stored in diff regions of the brain.
-1 study by Caramazza & colleagues (2010) found that this holds true even if u had never seen a cat or a hammer before.--> Blind individuals will show the same brain activity as sighted individuals when asked to pic a cat or a hammer; the same respective regions of the visual cortex will activate.
--> These findings suggest that categorization in the visual cortex is not merely a product of learning, but that our brains r pre-wired for categorization.
52
Anomia
- A brain disorder in which an individual loses their ability to name common objects.
- These individuals r still able to understand the object’s function.
-It is category specific--> People with anomia tend to have difficulty naming things within a certain category= category-specific anomia.
--> Category specific anomia can impact ur ability to name persons (Group A), name animals (Group B), or name objects (Group C).
--> Those in Group A r unable to name persons but will have no difficulty naming animals or objects; their anomia is localized to a specific category.--> Similar patterns r ground for Groups B & C.
- when researchers look at where exactly the brain damage was localized, they found that the impaired area was diff for each group. --> provides further evidence that we hold diff types of categories in diff areas of the brain.
53
Object agnosia
- A brain disorder in which individuals cannot recognize objects despite having perfect vision
- while anomia is simply about naming the object, object agnosia is an inability to recognize an object by sight --> person with anomia would be able to identify what the object is used for, just can't name it.
--> Someone with object agnosia would be unable to recognize the object at all. --> may also not be able to match an object with diff presentations of the same stimulus. --> Ex, may not be able to understand that a closed umbrella & an open umbrella r the same object.
- while they have difficulty recognizing objects (as the name suggests), they can recognize faces. --> suggests that we categorize faces differently than we categorize objects.
--> Like anomia, object agnosia is category specific--> someone may have difficulty recognizing only certain objects within a particular category (Ex, they may only have difficulty recognizing fruits or vegetables).
- Together, anomia & object agnosia demo that the borders between categories r not only a result of social learning.--> Since certain types of brain damage only impact our ability to interact with specific categories, this suggests that our understanding of broad-level categories is innate.
54
Can non-human animals categorize items as humans do?
- some most famous research in this area has examined the ability of Baboons to understand & use complex categories. --> In 1experiment using instrumental conditioning, scientists taught baboons to classify objects as being either ‘food’ or ‘nonfood’. --> The baboons learned this distinction relatively quickly, & were eventually able to categorize new objects into these categories with 90% accuracy.
- Once baboons were performing well on this basic categorization task, researchers moved to
more difficult challenge.--> The baboons had to identify whether or not 2 items belonged to the abstract
categories of Same or Different. --> Ex, if 2 food items were presented, they should be categorized as being in the Same category
-->If food & non-food item were presented, they should be categorized as being in the Diff category &
- Even with this more abstract categorization task, with practice, the baboons
also reached about 90% accuracy on this task, even while using a variety of novel test objects.
- but, other experiments in training non-human animals to categorize have led to mixed results, suggesting that
there r limitations in non-human animals’ abilities to categorize. --> In fact, this limitation in categorization abilities may be why animals have yet to show a true demo of language. --> It’s also
possible that as researchers, we r taking a human-centric view to judge what qualifies as a demo of these cognitive processes.
55
Categorization: consider that there may also be costs to this efficiency. Elaborate.
- Instead of the
abstract categories of concepts & objects we've discussed so far, consider the diff groups of people that u may encounter.--> Using ur understanding of categorization, u can begin to
understand the social phenomenon of stereotypes.
- Stereotyping assumes that an entire social group of
people share the same characteristics, traits, & behaviours which forms ur impression of the group.
--> When u encounter new member of the social group, u may assume that this new individual will share the same characteristics, traits, & behaviours conforming to ur prototype.
56
Dr. P.
-the famous book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.--> In book Dr. Oliver Sacks describes his encounters with a patient, called ‘Dr. P.’.
- Dr. P. felt perfectly healthy, but experienced some strange problems in his everyday life.
--> Sometimes, he would be unable to recognize the faces of those around him. --> Other times, he saw faces where there were none.
- he would speak to water hydrants or parking meters as though they were children, & he would be surprised when they didn't respond back.
--> Once, Dr. P. grabbed at his wife’s head, treating it as tho it were a hat, &, when given a rose, stated that it was “A convoluted red form with a linear green attachment.”
- Dr. P. had perfect vision, and no dementia. Instead, Dr. P. had a neurological disorder that prevented him from perceiving objects. As a result, Dr. P. also had a hard time categorizing things by sight.
- Every day, we categorize without effort.--> Categorization allows us to interact with the world around us; Dr. P.’s inability to interact with everyday objects gives us some insight into how difficult life would be if we were unable to categorize.
57
Application of categorization
- ISSUE: Some students do well ansing questions (on exams) that r similar to exs (problems) done in class, but can’t apply or generalize to a new context
(problem) presented on other exam questions
--> this is cuz they use the exemplar approach as opposed to the abstraction approach
Abstraction Approach
* learn underlying rule or abstraction of categories & problems (schema)
Exemplar Approach
* learn particular training exs & their association with appropriate categories or problem solutions
--> essentially memorizinng problems & their steps for solution
- for near transfer questions, everyone does well, but for far transfer, exemplar approach learners struggle
Psych 1X03
flashcards
Decks in class (13)
# Cards
-
Research methods 1107
-
Textbook: Intro: foundations of psych11
-
Classical Conditioning82
-
Instumental conditioning69
-
Problem Solving & Intelligence65
-
Language82
-
Categories & Concepts57
-
Science of learning22
-
chapter 7 textbook: Attention0
-
Attention!73
-
Influence of others oney158
-
Forming Impressions (HEHE)69
-
Memoryyyyyyyyyyyyy106
