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


DD303 Chp 9 Concepts

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 eg "chest'
2 Categorisation
2.1 Bruner
2.1.1 Individual things in terms of group membership
2.1.2 Implies Conceptual grouping via behaviour eg petting dogs Different behaviour = thinking differently about different concepts
2.2 Sorting tasks
2.2.1 Ross & Murphy Eggs Breakfast 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? Store facts R'ship between concepts 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 Common properties Necessary condition If item has properties common to category's members, it must be a member too Sufficient condition
4.1.2 Evidence for: Bruner et al People associate common properties with category members
4.1.3 Criticisms Typicality Robin more typical bird than penguin "All or nothing" ≠ reality Rosch Ps verified sentences 'Robin is a bird' quicker than 'Penguin is a bird' Robin = more typical Categories have rich internal structure Not explained by classical view Borderline cases If "all or nothing" ≠ borderline Red/orange? McCloskey & Glucksberg Ps rated items inconsistently & @ different times eg bookends as furniture Intransitiivty If A is in B and B is in C then A is in C Hampton Ps judgements not fit with rule eg car seats Lack of definitions Wittgenstein All members share common properties? Games? Olympic Card Board Most categories indefinable
4.2 2) Prototype view
4.2.1 Prototype Most typical examplar of category Object = member if meets enough properties of category - ie similarity to prototype ie NO necessary condition Property can have many values eg apple colour Typicality weightings Highly typical instances match highly-weighted properties Typicality correlated with how widely members share attributes
4.2.2 Criticisms Meaning of typicality effects Armstrong et al Concepts not organised around prototype BUT existence of typicality effects aren't conclusive evidence membership determined by similarity to prototype Suggests: Dual process model (ie combine both theories) 1) Concept core - judge category membership 2) Identity procedures - match instances to category Context sensitivity Typicality effects alter w/ context Medin & Shoben Spoons Metal more typical than wooden Small more typical than large BUT large wooden more typical than small wooden! Complex concepts not cope with concept combinations eg red car How combine prototypes? eg Stone lion?
4.3 3) Common-sense theories
4.3.1 Issues with similarity based approaches (classical & prototype) Meaning Items can share infinite things in common Plumb and Lawnmower
4.3.2 Evidence for: Rips Pizza & US 1/4 3rd object: more like pizza but more similar to 1/4 Dissociation between category & similarity Underlying theory not just similarity based Kiel Developmental aspects Hybrid zebra w/ horse insides 4yrs = zebra (appearance); 7yrs = horse (lineage) Characteristic defining shift w/ age
4.3.3 Criticisms Just because deeper knowledge suggested (not just similarity) doesn't make it more correct "theory" poorly defined; common sense not compatible w/ science theory More like 'knowledge' - Murphy No explanation for complex concepts May just replace 'similarity' w/ 'theory' 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 Superficial properties known, may not be able to define essential properties Medin & Ortony 'Placeholder' for essential properties - empty if cant define
4.4.3 Evidence for: Innate potential test kids belief re innate properties Animal switch from its bio parents to new ones Pre-school kids: Kangaroo & goat = pouch & hop (ie innate kangaroo property) Children more nativist Gellman & Wellman Young kids: insides more import re id of category
4.4.4 Criticisms Context & perspective Malt Categorisation depend on context & goals of perceiver Water = puddles or tears Expert opinion Malt Ps ask expert re borderline natural item than for artefact (eg soap) Natural categories may involve psych essentialism as Ps recognise info experts bring
4.4.5 Gelman Children Look beyond the obvious in various ways Learning words Generalising knowledge to new category members Reasoning about insides of things Beliefs re nature vs nurture Constructing causal explanations Certain categories (eg lion; female) have underlying reality - cannot be directly observed Psych essentialism = early cognitive bias? Against view that children are concrete thinkers
5 Where next?
5.1 All theories flawed!
5.1.1 Classical Necessary & sufficient conditions only id for few categories
5.1.2 Prototype Not explain context sensitivity or complex concepts
5.1.3 Theory theory Imprecise, no definitions, cant explain complex concepts
5.1.4 Psych essentialism 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 Classical - for definitions Prototype - rapid categorisation or fuzzy matching Theory based - considered judgements, explanation for category membership Psych Essentialism - integrate scientific knowledge, expert view
5.2.3 Smith & Sloman Replicate Rips (pizza) Same dissociation is Ps think out loud 2 modes Similarity based Rule based
5.2.4 Language Categories have labels Words & concepts linked Some words to label items in different categories eg stone lion Malt "Shampoo bottle" Not a bottle!
5.3 All concepts the same?
5.3.1 Well defined amenable to definition Classical view Not explain typicality!
5.3.2 Fuzzy Prototype eg "red"
5.3.3 Common-sense "sparrow"; "introvert" Theory or Essentialism
5.4 All categorisers the same?
5.4.1 Different approaches depend on knowledge/skill? Medin Trees Taxonomists, maintenance workers, landscapers Different approach
5.4.2 Lynch et al Typicality ratings vary between experts & novices
Show full summary Hide full summary


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