Impact of varying levels of expertise on decisions of category typicality

The representation of ontological category concepts as affected by healthy aging: Normative data and theoretical implications

“…Also, with increasing age, the higher typicality ratings may be the result of better defined category structures being developed, which could be affected by increased frequency of exposure to and/or familiarity with concepts. Such evidence was reported by Johnson (2001), in a study comparing typicality ratings of novices and bird experts. Johnson reported that experts rated exemplars with which they had detailed knowledge as more typical than novices did.…”

“…Regarding the latter three initially, it is easy to understand why, as the frequency with which someone encounters an object increases, their knowledge of the characteristics (visual and nonvisual) of this concept should also increase (as indicated by the ratings of imageability and familiarity). Regarding the relationship between these variables and typicality, it seems that as exposure to and knowledge of an object increases, so too does the extent to which this object is regarded as typical of the category to which it belongs (see Johnson, 2001; this issue will be further discussed below).…”

A lifespan perspective on semantic processing of concrete concepts: does a sensory/motor model have the potential to bridge the gap?

“…The greater magnitude of ratings for familiarity is considered to come from older adults' longer and more diverse experience with concepts, while typicality differences may reflect not only increased frequency of contact with object concepts, but also "better defined category structures" (Morrow & Duffy, 2005, p. 615), which come as a result of greater experience with a diversity of category members. Morrow and Duffy also likened these effects to similar effects seen in experts versus novices with a particular category (e.g., Johnson, 2001), as well as to developmental trends observed from childhood to adulthood (e.g., Berman, Friedman, Hamberger & Snodgrass, 1989;Bjorklund, Thompson & Ornstein, 1983).…”

Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of expertise

“…Thus, from the theory-based perspective one should also expect differences in expert-novice classification patterns. Research in this area indicates that novices develop classification schemes based on surface features, whereas experts consider both surface features and underlying concepts (Day & Lord, 1992;Johnson, 2001;Tanaka & Taylor, 1991). Related studies have shown that experts build fewer but more integrated classes during free classification tasks (Kozma & Russell, 1997), and make finer distinctions between groups (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyesbraem, 1976).…”

“…For example, there are several studies on the effect of expertise in the classification of natural kinds, such as birds (Bailenson, Shum, Atran, Medin, & Coley, 2002;Johnson, 2001;Tanaka & Taylor, 1991) and trees (Medin et al, 1997). Other investigators have compared novice and expert approaches to the classification of physics and chemistry problems (Chi et al, 1981;Finney & Schwenz, 2005), and to the categorization of different representations of chemical phenomena (Kozma & Russell, 1997).However, analysis of the effect of expertise on the classification of scientific theoretical constructs has been largely overlooked, particularly in the field of chemistry (Thagard & Toombs, 2005).…”