Differences in the saliency of sensory features elicited by words.

Abstract

This research is based upon a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the doctoral degree at the University of Western Ontario. The suggestions, criticisms, and support for this project given by his committee members, DrsJ.P. Denny, R.C. Gardner, L. Prytulak, and J. Siegel, are gratefully acknowledged. Dr. D.J. Herrmann, in a most useful review, provided many suggestions incorporated in this paper. A special thanks is due to my research supervisor, Dr Allan Paivio, for the many ways in which he has helped in my growth as an experimental psychologist. I thank him heartily. Thanks are also due to the Board of Education of the City of London, particularly the former Principal (H. Capes) and Vice-Principal (J. Ryan) of South Secondary School for their aid in promoting portions of this study.

Dominance and typicality norms for properties: Convergent and discriminant validity

“…Property Goodness: Typicality (Tl) Rosch (1975) has shown that some instances are considered to be better or more typical of a category than are others. Katz (1978) has shown that properties of items can be similarly scaled. In the present task, Rosch's (1975) scaling procedure was employed.…”

“…Finally, the norms should prove useful in studies of concept identification. Dominance (Underwood & Richardson, 1956b), typicality (Katz, 1978), rank (Mednick & Halpern, 1962), and the ratio of relevant to irrelevant properties (Underwood, 1957) are variables already shown to be of importance in the identification literature, and each is present or easily computed from the sets of norms given here. struct (e.g., goodness) does not correlate too highly with a measure of a conceptually distinct construct (e.g., dominance).…”