Textbook Notes (362,902)
Canada (158,096)
Psychology (2,948)
PSY100H1 (1,804)

PSYB57 Ch-8.docx

6 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Dwayne Pare

Ch-8 psych Definitions: what is a “dog”? May come up with characteristics like: mammalian – 4 legs – barks – wags tail But what if a dog has lost tail in an accident? No longer dog? No. to resolve this exceptions, came up with general definition: - There are some terms, like what is a game? Game is a concept, a term we use all day actually don’t have definitions - Each clause of definition finds an exception – show is made of leather but can be made of wood. - Avoid these exceptions by probabilistic phrase – preservers what’s good about definition – name sensible, relevant features, shared by most members of category – allows a degree of uncertainty - Family resemblance – notion that members of category (dog, shoe) resemble each other – relies on some number of features being shared by any group of category members, even though these features may not be shared by all members of category - Many family members have dark hair – dark hair is typical of family, does not define the family b/c not ALL family members have dark hair; wearing glasses – typical feature, not defining feature of family - Ordinary categories like dog, game –no features are shared by all, no features are shared by all everyone – are “characteristic features” – features that many category members have not everyone Prototypes and typicality effects: - Definition is like setting boundaries for category – has certain attribute, inside boundary; does not have attributes, out of boundary Prototype – theory that claims mental categories are represented by identifying “center” of category or “ideal, best example, full of all features” - Represents ideal for the category - An average of various category members of def (dog, shoe) - Serve for our conceptual knowledge – when reasoning is done using concept or conceptual knowledge, it is done with reference to the prototype Family resemblance – boundaries, common features Prototype – center of category (perfect), average of features Prototype and graded membership: - Membership is category depends on resemblance to prototype and resemblance is matter of degree - Therefore, membership in category is not “yes/no” but it is “more-likely, less- likely” – dogs are “doggier”, books are “bookier” Testing prototype: - Verification test – given examples, must respond quickly true or false - read words and click yes when recognize, else no – speed of response varies from item to item within category – more similarity between prototype and test case (word), much faster response – German Sheppard more close to prototype of dog than afghan - Production task – procedure in which person is asked to name as many examples as possible – do this task by first locating bird/dog prototype, will start with center and work outward – bird (robin) close to prototype mention first, farther from prototype, mention later Members of category that are privileged in one task (bring fast response) are the one’s that gets privileged on other tasks too (most likely to be mentioned first) - Various tasks converge, yields same answer – makes candidates of same category become special. - Rating tasks: evaluate items/category expressing response in terms of number – something that is rated as “very” means its close to prototype, “less” – farther from prototype - Thinking about category in fact is thinking about prototype for that category – usually come with statements that if words are changed with different prototype from same category, meaning of whole statement remains unchanged Basic level categories: - There is “natural” level of categorization, neither too specific, nor too general – tend to use in general conversation and reasoning - Usually represented in language via single word, specific categories (subordinate) categories are represented with phrase - Easy to describe object with basic level categories (chairs), hard to describe in superordinate categories (lawn chair, dining chair) - Important for reasons – learning how to talk; basic level terms – acquired earlier, reflect natural way to categorize objects in world. Exemplars: Some “objects” of categories are “better” than the other – better objects are recognized more readily, mentioned more often, judged more typical – conceptual knowledge is represented via prototype Analogies from exemplars - Categorization can draw on knowledge about specific category members rather than general information about overall category – exemplar based reasoning – exemplar being defined as particular remembered instance - Exemplar-based similar to prototype – categorize objects by comparing them mentally according to “standard” - Difference – in prototype, “the standard” is average representing the entire category – in exemplar theory, “the standard” is provided by whatever example of category comes to mind - Ex. Determine whether the picture is a fruit picture or not: in picture, if there is an “apple”, “apple” will be recognized fast – well primed, frequent encounters – thus picture containing apple and apple being fruit, means the picture is fruit picture. If picture has “fig” as fruit, “fig” being away from fruit prototype, will take long to recognize, and hence long to categorize whether the pic is fruit pic or not - Graded-membership pattern – name as many fruits, quickly will name typical orange, apple – well primed, easy to retrieve, production will favor typical fruits – not because of prototype but because of pattern available in memory Combine exemplar and prototype: - Conceptual knowledge includes both prototypes and exemplars – own advantages – good at exemplar (have extensive knowledge about individual object), while same person may be good at prototype (have only general knowledge about snow-shoes) - Pattern of knowledge depends on of category and how confusable category memories are with each other – pattern can change - Combining prototype and exemplar – similar – object in front of eyes triggers some information in memory (whether specific instance – exemplary or general – prototype) – assess resemblance between conceptual knowledge supplied by memory and novel object – object resemble couch-object=couch - Both models rely on same process – triggering of memory, then judgment of resemblance and finally conclusion based on that judgment Basically, judgments depend upon memory, what memory does the object brings into mind upon encountering and from existing knowledge. If it brings comparison of object to s
More Less

Related notes for PSY100H1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.