Abstract
Recently, it has been suggested that some categories commonly used in category learning research are eliciting primarily item-level memorization strategies. A new measure of generalization, the category advantage, was introduced and used to test performance on the popular “5–4” categories. To estimate a category advantage, performance on a standard category learning task is compared with performance in an identification task, where participants learn a unique response to each stimulus. Once corrected for differences in chance expectancy, the advantage shown for the category learning task represents the degree to which participants capitalize on the natural similarity structure of the categories. In Experiment 1, the category advantage measure was validated on structured and unstructured categories. In Experiments 2 and 3, the 5–4 categories failed to produce a category advantage when tested with either of two stimulus types, suggesting that these categories elicit predominantly memorization.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R., &Betz, J. (2001). A hybrid model of categorization.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 629–647.
Ashby, F. G., &Maddox, W. T. (1993). Relations between prototype, exemplar, and decision bound models of categorization.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,37, 372–400.
Blair, M., &Homa, D. (2001). Expanding the search for a linear separability constraint on category learning.Memory & Cognition,29, 1153–1164.
Blair, M., Homa, D., & Johnson, L. (2002, November).Category learning and recognition when instances do not repeat. Poster session presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Kansas City, MO.
Bourne, L. E., Healy, A. F., Parker, J. T., &Rickard, T. C. (1999). The strategic basis of performance in binary classification tasks: Strategy choices and strategy transitions.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 223–252.
Erickson, M. A., &Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 107–140.
Homa, D. (1978). Abstraction of ill-defined form.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 407–416.
Homa, D., &Vosburgh, R. (1976). Category breadth and the abstraction of prototypical information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,2, 322–330.
Johansen, M. K., &Palmeri, T. J. (2002). Are there representational shifts during category learning?Cognitive Psychology,45, 482–553.
Knowlton, B. J., &Squire, L. R. (1993). The learning of categories— parallel brain systems for item memory and category knowledge.Science,262, 1747–1749.
Lamberts, K. (1995). Categorization under time pressure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 161–180.
Lamberts, K. (2000). Information-accumulation theory of speeded categorization.Psychological Review,107, 227–260.
Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., &Murphy, T. D. (1984). Given versus induced category representations—use of prototype and exemplar information in classif ication.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 333–352.
Medin, D. L., Dewey, G. I., &Murphy, T. D. (1983). Relationships between item and category learning—evidence that abstraction is not automatic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 607–625.
Medin, D. L., &Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review,85, 207–238.
Medin, D. L., &Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 355–368.
Medin, D. L., &Smith, E. E. (1981). Strategies and classif ication learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 241–253.
Minda, J. P., &Smith, J. D. (2001). Prototypes in category learning: The effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 775–799.
Minda, J. P., &Smith, J. D. (2002). Comparing prototype-based and exemplar-based accounts of category learning and attentional allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 275–292.
Murphy, G. L. (2002).The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identificationcategorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 39–57.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 700–708.
Nosofsky, R. M., Kruschke, J. K., &McKinley, S. C. (1992). Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 211–233.
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., &McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plusexception model of classification learning.Psychological Review,101, 53–79.
Nosofsky, R. M., &Zaki, S. R. (1998). Dissociations between categorization and recognition in amnesic and normal individuals: An exemplar-based interpretation.Psychological Science,9, 247–255.
Palmeri, T. J., &Nosofsky, R. M. (1995). Recognition memory for ex ceptions to the category rule.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 548–568.
Reed, S. K. (1978). Category vs. item learning: Implications for categorization models.Memory & Cognition,6, 612–621.
Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. I., &Jenkins, H. M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classif ications.Psychological Monographs,75(13, Whole No. 517), 42.
Smith, J. D., &Minda, J. P. (1998). Prototypes in the mist: The early epochs of category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1411–1436.
Smith, J. D., &Minda, J. P. (2000). Thirty categorization results in search of a model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 3–27.
Smith, J. D., &Minda, J. P. (2001). Journey to the center of the category: The dissociation in amnesia between categorization and recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 984–1002.
Smith, J. D., Murray, M. J., &Minda, J. P. (1997). Straight talk about linear separability.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 659–680.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Portions of the data contained in this manuscript were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Orlando, Florida, November 2001.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blair, M., Homa, D. As easy to memorize as they are to classify: The 5–4 categories and the category advantage. Memory & Cognition 31, 1293–1301 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195812
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195812