Abstract
The operation of negation on combinations of natural categories was examined in two experiments. In the first, category membership ratings of lists of items were obtained for pairs of concepts considered individually and in two logical combinations: conjunctions (e.g., “Tools which are also Weapons”) and negated conjunctions—forms of those conjunctions in which the modifier noun category was negated (“Tools which arenot Weapons”). For conjunctions, results supported earlier findings of overextension and the geometric averaging of constituent membership values (Hampton, 1988b). Previous findings of concept dominance and noncommutativity within conjunctions were also replicated, both for typicality ratings and for probability of class membership. For negated conjunctions, the pattern of dominance was similar but interacted with order within the conjunction. Negated conjunctions were also overextended. The second experiment explored how the attributes of negated conjunctions were derived from those of the two component concepts. Frequency of generation of attributes expressed positively (has wheels) or negatively (has no wheels) followed rated frequency in the negated category. The distinctiveness of an attribute to distinguish the complement from the head-noun class was associated with the generation of attributes, particularly when there was relatively high overlap between the two categories.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Achen, C. H. (1982).Interpreting and using regression. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., &Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be.Cognition,13, 263–308.
Ashby, F. G., &Gott, R. E. (1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 33–53.
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories.Memory & Cognition,11, 211–227.
Chater, N., Lyon, K., &Myers, T. (1990). Why are conjunctive concepts overextended?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 497–508.
Cohen, B., &Murphy, G. L. (1984). Models of concepts.Cognitive Science,8, 27–58.
Fodor, J. A. (1994). Concepts—a pot-boiler.Cognition,50, 95–113.
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory & Cognition,15, 55–71.
Hampton, J. A. (1988a). Disjunction of natural concepts.Memory & Cognition,16, 579–591.
Hampton, J. A. (1988b). Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 12–32.
Hampton, J. A. (1991). The combination of prototype concepts. In P. Schwanenflugel (Ed.),The psychology of word meanings (pp. 91–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hampton, J. A. (1993). Prototype models of concept representation. In I. van Mechelen, J. A. Hampton, R. S. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.),Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 67–95). London: Academic.
Hampton, J. A. (1996). Conjunctions of visually -based categories: Overextension and compensation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 378–396.
Hampton, J. A. (1997a). Conceptual combination. In K. Lamberts & D. Shanks (Eds.),Knowledge, concepts and categories (pp. 135–162). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Hampton, J. A. (1997b). Emergent attributes in conceptual combinations. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Viad (Eds.),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 83–110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hampton, J. A. (in press). Psychological representation of concepts. In M. A. Conway & S. E. Gathercole (Eds.),Cognitive models of memory. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Huttenlocher, J., &Hedges, L. V. (1994). Combining graded categories: Membership and typicality.Psychological Review,101, 157–165.
Jones, G. V. (1982). Stacks not fuzzy sets: An ordinal basis for prototype theory of concepts.Cognition,12, 281–290.
Katz, J. J., &Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory.Language,39, 170–210.
Kunda, Z., Miller, D. T., &Clare, T. (1990). Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning.Cognitive Science,14, 551–578.
Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity.Psychological Review,100, 254–278.
Miller, G. A., &Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976).Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.),The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science,12, 529–562.
Murphy, G. L., &Spalding, T. (1995). Knowledge, similarity, and concept formation.Psychologica Belgica,35, 127–144.
Osherson, D. N., &Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts.Cognition,11, 35–58.
Osherson, D. N., &Smith, E. E. (1982). Gradedness and conceptual conjunction.Cognition,12, 299–318.
Rips, L. J. (1995). The current status of research on concept combination.Mind & Language,10, 72–104.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosch, E., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7, 573–605.
Smith, E. E., &Osherson, D. N. (1984). Conceptual combination with prototype concepts.Cognitive Science,8, 337–361.
Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., &Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model.Cognitive Science,12, 485–527.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., van Mechelen, I., &Geeraerts, D. (1993). Dominance and noncommutativity effects in concept conjunctions: Extensional or intensional basis?Memory & Cognition,21, 752–762.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., van Mechelen, I., &Ruts,W. (1996). The dominance effect in concept conjunctions: Generality and interaction aspects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1266–1280.
Thagard, P. (1983, June).Conceptual combination: A frame-based theory. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology, Wellesley, MA.
Thagard, P. (1995, May).Conceptual combination, coherence and creativity. Paper presented at the Creative Concepts Conference, Texas A&M.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Psychological Review,90, 293–315.
Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information & Control,8, 338–353.
Zadeh, L. (1982). A note on prototype theory and fuzzy sets.Cognition,12, 291–297.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Part of this research was conducted while the author was on sabbatical leave at Stanford University, whose hospitality is gratefully acknowledged. It was made possible by the award of a fellowship from the Nuffield Foundation and a personal research award from the British Academy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hampton, J.A. Conceptual combination: Conjunction and negation of natural concepts. Memory & Cognition 25, 888–909 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211333
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211333