2011
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0058-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Categorizing entities by common role

Abstract: 1a and 1b, we demonstrate that the use of novel category labels facilitates role-governed categorization. In Experiments 2a and 2b, we demonstrate that analogical comparison facilitates role-governed categorization. In Experiments 1b and 2b, we show that these facilitatory factors induce a general sensitivity to role information, as opposed to only promoting role-governed categorization on an item-by-item basis.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, earlier stages of learning are characterized by a focus on within‐domain surface similarities; the ability to recognize relational structures across different situations emerges later (see Gentner & Rattermann, 1991; Doumas, Hummel, & Sandhofer, 2008 for reviews). There is also considerable evidence that analogical comparison promotes learning relational categories (Christie & Gentner, 2010; Gentner, Anggoro, & Klibanoff, 2011; Goldwater & Markman, 2011). Thus, one explanation for the difference between physical science students and the other groups is that the physical science students had many opportunities to compare across domains and had thereby abstracted a rich stock of causal abstractions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, earlier stages of learning are characterized by a focus on within‐domain surface similarities; the ability to recognize relational structures across different situations emerges later (see Gentner & Rattermann, 1991; Doumas, Hummel, & Sandhofer, 2008 for reviews). There is also considerable evidence that analogical comparison promotes learning relational categories (Christie & Gentner, 2010; Gentner, Anggoro, & Klibanoff, 2011; Goldwater & Markman, 2011). Thus, one explanation for the difference between physical science students and the other groups is that the physical science students had many opportunities to compare across domains and had thereby abstracted a rich stock of causal abstractions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, aligning a series of exemplar sets of entities bound by a central force could create an abstract “central force” concept that could classify together an atom, the solar system, the milky‐way galaxy, etc. The number of experimental and computational investigations of relational category learning has been rapidly growing over the past few years, (e.g., Corral & Jones, ; Doumas, Hummel, & Sandhofer, ; Goldwater & Markman, ; Goldwater & Gentner, ; Goldwater & Schalk, ; Jung & Hummel, ; Kurtz, Boukrina, & Gentner, ; Tomlinson & Love, for review)…”
Section: Behavioral Patterns Of Relational Category Learningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, carnivore and herbivore are abstract relational categories, while canine and feline are abstract entity categories. Relational categories have been the focus of much recent research (Asmuth & Gentner, 2017;Gentner, 2005;Gentner & Kurtz, 2005;Goldwater & Markman, 2011;Markman & Stilwell, 2001;Ross & Murphy, 1999), in part because of their important role in conceptual learning and education (Goldwater & Schalk, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%