Concept identification as a function of obviousness of relevant and irrelevant information.

Archer, E. James

doi:10.1037/h0048046

Cited by 60 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, using flower patterns as stimuli, Trabasso (1963) found that identification of the relevant dimension, stem-leaves angle, was faster when the angle was colored red than when the color of the angle was the same as the rest of the flower. Similarly, Archer (1962) found Psychon. Sci., 1969, Vol.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rate of concept identification and the noticeability of the relevant dimension

1969

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rate of concept identification and the noticeability of the relevant dimension

1969

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cutting and Schatz (1976) found that in a card-sorting task typicality interacted with proximity of categories, with very long decision times for poor examples of semantically close categories. With respect to the study of CI performance also Archer's (1962) findings on obviousness are of interest. Obviousness was defined as the magnitude of the difference between two categories.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first aim was to investigate the effect on CI performance of varying the typicality of dimensional values. Following Rosch's (1973) line -of thought on the facilitating effect of prototypical information on learning, and from Archer's (1962) findings regarding obviousness, it was predicted that CI performance would be better when the relevant (or defining) values (R) were typical (typ) than when they are atypical (atyp). Furthermore, when the irrelevant (or nondefining) values (I) were atypical, CI performance would be better than when they were typical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Typicality, physiological activity and concept identification

Das-Smaal

Swart

1981

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent to which instances are good or poor examples of their categories (typicality) was varied in a concept identification (CI) task. Typicality was first established for the kind of artificial material traditionally used in CI tasks (experiment 1). This material was employed in a CI task (experiment 2) with a variety of dependent variables, including the galvanic skin response (GSR). To test the generality of the results, more realistic stimuli were employed (experiments 3 and 4). The results showed that typicality influenced performance on the CI task, that the GSR is primarily related to uncertainty reduction, that the findings with arbitrary materials are replicated with more meaningful materials, and that the multi-hypothesis sampling theory of Levine is supported by the findings.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Observations that the rate of CI is often dependent upon the dimension that is relevant to the solution suggests that the probability of a cue being attended to will determine, in part, the ease of CI when that cue is relevant. Various investigators have postulated attention factors such as discriminability (Archer, Boume, & Brown, 1955), obviousness (Sechrest & Kaas, 1965;and Archer, 1962), and the ratio of the weight of relevant cues to the weight of aß cues (Boume & Restle, 1959; RestIe, 1962;and Bower & Trabasso, 1964).Inherent in these studies is the suggestion that the obviousness or discriminability of the dimensions of the stimuli will determine the preference of Ss for utilizing the dimensions in CI. Imai & Gamer (1965) have attempted to determine the relationship between discriminability and preference in a card-sorting task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminability and preference in concept identification

Downing

1969

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypothesis tested in this study was that the relative discriminability of dimensions would determine the rate of concept identification (CI) by determining the order of preference for testing the relevance of dimensions. Areaction time measure of discriminability and the Levine procedure for identifying hypotheses were employed. The results indicated that discriminability had no simple relationship to preference and that neither relative discriminability nor relative preference was predictive of CI rates. An explanation of the results in terms ofmultiple hypotheses testing is offered.The effect of selective attention variables on rate of concept identification (CI) has recently been a subject of increasing interest. The concept of selective attention implies that organisms may not attend to or respond to aß aspects of the stimulus environment but only to certain selected aspects. Observations that the rate of CI is often dependent upon the dimension that is relevant to the solution suggests that the probability of a cue being attended to will determine, in part, the ease of CI when that cue is relevant. Various investigators have postulated attention factors such as discriminability (Archer, Boume, & Brown, 1955), obviousness (Sechrest & Kaas, 1965;and Archer, 1962), and the ratio of the weight of relevant cues to the weight of aß cues (Boume & Restle, 1959; RestIe, 1962;and Bower & Trabasso, 1964).Inherent in these studies is the suggestion that the obviousness or discriminability of the dimensions of the stimuli will determine the preference of Ss for utilizing the dimensions in CI. Imai & Gamer (1965) have attempted to determine the relationship between discriminability and preference in a card-sorting task. Oiscriminability was defined as the physical distance between two levels of a dimension and preference was defined as the proportion of times Ss used a dimension as the basis of c1assification when they could employ any dimension (free c1assification). Their resuIts indicated a relationship between discriminability and preference such that the greater the discriminability, the more probable it was that the dimension would be used for c1assification. When Ss were told wh at dimension to use for c1assification (constrained c1assification), only the discriminability affected the speed of c1assification; preference had no effect on speed.. The Imai and Gamer resuIts may not be directIy applicable to a CI problem, because CI does not involve completely free nor completely constrained c1assification. However, if measures of discriminability and of original preference for dimensions during CI are taken, observation of their effects on speed of CI would be appropriate.The following study utilized areaction time (RT) measure of relative discriminability and a dimension preference measure to test the hypothesis that the relative discriminability of dimensions will determine the preference for dimensions, thus determining the order of hypothesis testing and the rate of CI. The most discriminable dimension sh...

show abstract

Concept identification as a function of obviousness of relevant and irrelevant information.

Cited by 60 publications

References 4 publications

Rate of concept identification and the noticeability of the relevant dimension

Rate of concept identification and the noticeability of the relevant dimension

Typicality, physiological activity and concept identification

Discriminability and preference in concept identification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About