DD303 Concepts

Ken Adams
Mind Map by Ken Adams, updated more than 1 year ago
Ken Adams
Created by Ken Adams over 5 years ago
80
3

Description

DD303 Chp 9 Concepts
Tags

Resource summary

DD303 Concepts
1 Intro
1.1 Concepts
1.1.1 "General ideas that apply to every member of a category"
1.1.2 Internal to mind; categories external
1.1.3 Can map to multiple categories
1.1.3.1 eg "chest'
2 Categorisation
2.1 Bruner
2.1.1 Individual things in terms of group membership
2.1.2 Implies
2.1.2.1 Conceptual grouping via behaviour
2.1.2.1.1 eg petting dogs
2.1.2.2 Different behaviour = thinking differently about different concepts
2.2 Sorting tasks
2.2.1 Ross & Murphy
2.2.1.1 Eggs
2.2.1.1.1 Breakfast
2.2.1.1.2 Dairy
3 Concepts & Cognition
3.1 Makes it easier to remember stuff
3.2 Semantic classification
3.2.1 Recognition
3.2.2 Units of semantic membership?
3.2.2.1 Store facts
3.2.2.2 R'ship between concepts
3.2.2.2.1 eg cat & heart
3.3 Enable inferences
3.3.1 Reasoning
3.3.2 Simplify remembering info
3.4 Lexical concepts
3.4.1 Category represents what we believe 'cat' to mean
4 Explaining Categorisation
4.1 1) Classical view
4.1.1 Things belonging to category
4.1.1.1 Common properties
4.1.1.1.1 Necessary condition
4.1.1.2 If item has properties common to category's members, it must be a member too
4.1.1.2.1 Sufficient condition
4.1.2 Evidence for:
4.1.2.1 Bruner et al
4.1.2.1.1 People associate common properties with category members
4.1.3 Criticisms
4.1.3.1 Typicality
4.1.3.1.1 Robin more typical bird than penguin
4.1.3.1.2 "All or nothing" ≠ reality
4.1.3.1.2.1 Rosch
4.1.3.1.2.1.1 Ps verified sentences 'Robin is a bird' quicker than 'Penguin is a bird'
4.1.3.1.2.1.1.1 Robin = more typical
4.1.3.1.3 Categories have rich internal structure
4.1.3.1.3.1 Not explained by classical view
4.1.3.2 Borderline cases
4.1.3.2.1 If "all or nothing" ≠ borderline
4.1.3.2.2 Red/orange?
4.1.3.2.3 McCloskey & Glucksberg
4.1.3.2.3.1 Ps rated items inconsistently & @ different times
4.1.3.2.3.2 eg bookends as furniture
4.1.3.3 Intransitiivty
4.1.3.3.1 If A is in B and B is in C then A is in C
4.1.3.3.2 Hampton
4.1.3.3.2.1 Ps judgements not fit with rule
4.1.3.3.2.2 eg car seats
4.1.3.4 Lack of definitions
4.1.3.4.1 Wittgenstein
4.1.3.4.1.1 All members share common properties?
4.1.3.4.1.1.1 Games?
4.1.3.4.1.1.1.1 Olympic
4.1.3.4.1.1.1.2 Card
4.1.3.4.1.1.1.3 Board
4.1.3.4.1.2 Most categories indefinable
4.2 2) Prototype view
4.2.1 Prototype
4.2.1.1 Most typical examplar of category
4.2.1.2 Object = member if meets enough properties of category - ie similarity to prototype
4.2.1.2.1 ie NO necessary condition
4.2.1.3 Property can have many values
4.2.1.3.1 eg apple colour
4.2.1.4 Typicality weightings
4.2.1.4.1 Highly typical instances match highly-weighted properties
4.2.1.4.2 Typicality correlated with how widely members share attributes
4.2.2 Criticisms
4.2.2.1 Meaning of typicality effects
4.2.2.1.1 Armstrong et al
4.2.2.1.1.1 Concepts not organised around prototype
4.2.2.1.1.1.1 BUT existence of typicality effects aren't conclusive evidence membership determined by similarity to prototype
4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Suggests: Dual process model (ie combine both theories)
4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 1) Concept core - judge category membership
4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 2) Identity procedures - match instances to category
4.2.2.2 Context sensitivity
4.2.2.2.1 Typicality effects alter w/ context
4.2.2.2.1.1 Medin & Shoben
4.2.2.2.1.1.1 Spoons
4.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 Metal more typical than wooden
4.2.2.2.1.1.1.2 Small more typical than large
4.2.2.2.1.1.1.3 BUT large wooden more typical than small wooden!
4.2.2.3 Complex concepts
4.2.2.3.1 not cope with concept combinations
4.2.2.3.1.1 eg red car
4.2.2.3.1.2 How combine prototypes?
4.2.2.3.1.2.1 eg Stone lion?
4.3 3) Common-sense theories
4.3.1 Issues with similarity based approaches (classical & prototype)
4.3.1.1 Meaning
4.3.1.2 Items can share infinite things in common
4.3.1.2.1 Plumb and Lawnmower
4.3.2 Evidence for:
4.3.2.1 Rips
4.3.2.1.1 Pizza & US 1/4
4.3.2.1.2 3rd object: more like pizza but more similar to 1/4
4.3.2.1.2.1 Dissociation between category & similarity
4.3.2.1.2.1.1 Underlying theory not just similarity based
4.3.2.2 Kiel
4.3.2.2.1 Developmental aspects
4.3.2.2.1.1 Hybrid zebra w/ horse insides
4.3.2.2.1.1.1 4yrs = zebra (appearance); 7yrs = horse (lineage)
4.3.2.2.2 Characteristic defining shift w/ age
4.3.3 Criticisms
4.3.3.1 Just because deeper knowledge suggested (not just similarity) doesn't make it more correct
4.3.3.2 "theory" poorly defined; common sense not compatible w/ science theory
4.3.3.2.1 More like 'knowledge' - Murphy
4.3.3.3 No explanation for complex concepts
4.3.3.4 May just replace 'similarity' w/ 'theory'
4.3.3.4.1 Both woolly terms
4.4 4) Psychological Essentialism
4.4.1 Assumes deeper principles
4.4.2 Objects categorised according to unobservable shared 'essential' properties
4.4.2.1 Superficial properties known, may not be able to define essential properties
4.4.2.2 Medin & Ortony
4.4.2.2.1 'Placeholder' for essential properties - empty if cant define
4.4.3 Evidence for:
4.4.3.1 Innate potential
4.4.3.1.1 test kids belief re innate properties
4.4.3.1.2 Animal switch from its bio parents to new ones
4.4.3.1.2.1 Pre-school kids: Kangaroo & goat = pouch & hop (ie innate kangaroo property)
4.4.3.1.3 Children more nativist
4.4.3.1.4 Gellman & Wellman
4.4.3.1.4.1 Young kids: insides more import re id of category
4.4.4 Criticisms
4.4.4.1 Context & perspective
4.4.4.1.1 Malt
4.4.4.1.1.1 Categorisation depend on context & goals of perceiver
4.4.4.1.1.2 Water = puddles or tears
4.4.4.2 Expert opinion
4.4.4.2.1 Malt
4.4.4.2.1.1 Ps ask expert re borderline natural item than for artefact (eg soap)
4.4.4.2.1.2 Natural categories may involve psych essentialism as Ps recognise info experts bring
4.4.5 Gelman
4.4.5.1 Children
4.4.5.1.1 Look beyond the obvious in various ways
4.4.5.1.1.1 Learning words
4.4.5.1.1.2 Generalising knowledge to new category members
4.4.5.1.1.3 Reasoning about insides of things
4.4.5.1.1.4 Beliefs re nature vs nurture
4.4.5.1.1.5 Constructing causal explanations
4.4.5.2 Certain categories (eg lion; female) have underlying reality - cannot be directly observed
4.4.5.3 Psych essentialism = early cognitive bias?
4.4.5.4 Against view that children are concrete thinkers
5 Where next?
5.1 All theories flawed!
5.1.1 Classical
5.1.1.1 Necessary & sufficient conditions only id for few categories
5.1.2 Prototype
5.1.2.1 Not explain context sensitivity or complex concepts
5.1.3 Theory theory
5.1.3.1 Imprecise, no definitions, cant explain complex concepts
5.1.4 Psych essentialism
5.1.4.1 Mixed evidence, much doesn't map to 'essences'
5.2 All categorisation the same?
5.2.1 Each approach for different scenarios ie not a single approach
5.2.2 Determinate # of different kinds of category
5.2.2.1 Classical - for definitions
5.2.2.2 Prototype - rapid categorisation or fuzzy matching
5.2.2.3 Theory based - considered judgements, explanation for category membership
5.2.2.4 Psych Essentialism - integrate scientific knowledge, expert view
5.2.3 Smith & Sloman
5.2.3.1 Replicate Rips (pizza)
5.2.3.2 Same dissociation is Ps think out loud
5.2.3.3 2 modes
5.2.3.3.1 Similarity based
5.2.3.3.2 Rule based
5.2.4 Language
5.2.4.1 Categories have labels
5.2.4.1.1 Words & concepts linked
5.2.4.1.2 Some words to label items in different categories
5.2.4.1.2.1 eg stone lion
5.2.4.2 Malt
5.2.4.2.1 "Shampoo bottle"
5.2.4.2.1.1 Not a bottle!
5.3 All concepts the same?
5.3.1 Well defined
5.3.1.1 amenable to definition
5.3.1.2 Classical view
5.3.1.3 Not explain typicality!
5.3.2 Fuzzy
5.3.2.1 Prototype
5.3.2.1.1 eg "red"
5.3.3 Common-sense
5.3.3.1 "sparrow"; "introvert"
5.3.3.1.1 Theory or Essentialism
5.4 All categorisers the same?
5.4.1 Different approaches depend on knowledge/skill?
5.4.1.1 Medin
5.4.1.1.1 Trees
5.4.1.1.2 Taxonomists, maintenance workers, landscapers
5.4.1.1.2.1 Different approach
5.4.2 Lynch et al
5.4.2.1 Typicality ratings vary between experts & novices
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

History of Psychology
mia.rigby
Biological Psychology - Stress
Gurdev Manchanda
Psychology A1
Ellie Hughes
Psychology subject map
Jake Pickup
Memory Key words
Sammy :P
Psychology | Unit 4 | Addiction - Explanations
showmestarlight
Bowlby's Theory of Attachment
Jessica Phillips
The Biological Approach to Psychology
Gabby Wood
Chapter 5: Short-term and Working Memory
krupa8711
Cognitive Psychology - Capacity and encoding
Tess W
Psychology and the MCAT
Sarah Egan