Abstract
Many accounts of categorization equate goodness-of-example with central tendency for common taxonomic categories; the best examples of a category are average members#x2014;those that are most similar to most other category members. In the present study, we asked 24 tree experts and 20 novices to rate goodness-of-example for a sample of 48 trees and found (1) that the internal structure of the categorytree differed between novices and experts and (2) that central tendency did not determine goodnessof-example ratings for either group. For novices, familiarity determined goodness-of-example ratings. For experts, the “ideal” dimensions of height and weediness, rather than average similarity to other trees, were the primary predictors of goodness-of-example ratings for experts. The best examples oftree were not species of average height, but of extreme height. The worst examples were the weediest trees. We also found systematic differences in predictors of goodness-of-example as a function of type of expertise. We argue that the internal structure of taxonomic categories can be shaped by goal-related experience and is not necessarily a reflection of the attributional structure of the environment. Implications for models of category structure and category learning are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., &Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be.Cognition,13, 263–308.
Atran, S. (1999). Itzaj Maya folkbiological taxonomy. In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.),Folkbiology (pp. 119–204). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories.Memory & Cognition,11, 211–227.
Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 629–649.
Berlin, B. (1992).Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Borkenau, P. (1990). Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,58, 381–396.
Boster, J. S. (1987). Agreement between biological classification systems is not dependent on cultural transmission.American Anthropologist,89, 914–919.
Boster, J. S. (1988). Natural sources of internal category structure: Typicality, familiarity, and similarity of birds.Memory & Cognition,16, 258–270.
Chaplin, W. G., John, O. P., &Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,54, 541–557.
Coley, J. D., Medin, D. M., &Atran, S. (1997). Does privilege have its rank? Inductive inferences within folkbiological taxonomies.Cognition,63, 73–1122.
Dirr, M. A. (1978).Photographic manual of woody landscape plants. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Hampton, J. A. (1981). An investigation of the nature of abstract concepts.Memory & Cognition,9, 149–1566.
Hunn, E. (1999). Size as limiting the recognition of biodiversity in folkbiological classifications: One of four factors governing the cultural recognition of biological taxa. In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), (pp. 47–69).Folkbiology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Little, E. L. (1980).The Audubon Society field guide to North American trees: Eastern region. New York: Knopf.
Malt, B. C. (1995). Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective.Cognitive Psychology,29, 84–148.
Malt, B. C., &Smith, E. (1982). The role of familiarity in determining typicality.Memory & Cognition,10, 69–75.
McCloskey, M., &Glucksberg, S. (1979). Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: Implications for models of semantic memory.Cognitive Psychology,11, 1–37.
Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D. &Atran, S. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome?Cognitive Psychology,32, 49–96.
Mervis, C. B., Catlin, J., &Rosch, E. (1976). Relationships among goodness-of-example, category norms, and word frequency.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,7, 283–284.
Mervis, C. B., &Pani, J. R. (1980). Acquisition of basic object categories.Cognitive Psychology,12, 496–522.
Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., &Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction.Psychological Review,97, 185–200.
Petrides, G. A. (1988.)Peterson field guides: Eastern trees. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Read, S. J., Jones, D. K., &Miller, L. C. (1990). Traits as goal-based categories: The importance of goals in the coherence of dispositional categories.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,58, 1048–1061.
Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgements about natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 665–681.
Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., &Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy.American Anthropologist,88, 318–338.
Rosch, E., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7, 573–605.
Rosch, E., Simpson, C., &Miller, R. S. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 491–502.
Smith, E. E. (1978). Theories of semantic memory. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 6, pp. 1–56). Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., &Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions.Psychological Review,81, 214–241.
Solomon, G. E. A. (1997). Conceptual change and wine expertise.Journal of the Learning Sciences,6, 41–60.
Swink, F., &Wilhelm, G. (1994).Plants of the Chicago region. Indianapolis: Indiana Academy of Science.
Worthen, J. B., &Nakamura, G. V. (1995). Roles of familiarity and family resemblance in determining representativeness in social categories.American Journal of Psychology,108, 195–211.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by NIH Grant MH55079 to D.L.M.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lynch, E.B., Coley, J.D. & Medin, D.L. Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, and graded category structure among tree experts and novices. Memory & Cognition 28, 41–50 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211575
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211575