Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?
- 31 July 1991
- journal article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Cognitive Psychology
- Vol. 23 (3), 457-482
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90016-h
Abstract
Classic research on conceptual hierarchies has shown that the interaction between the human perceiver and objects in the environment specifies one level of abstraction for categorizing objects, called the basic level, which plays a primary role in cognition. The question of whether the special psychological status of the basic level can be modified by experience was addressed in three experiments comparing the performance of subjects in expert and novice domains. The main findings were that in the domain of expertise (a) subordinate-level categories were as differentiated as the basic-level categories, (b) subordinate-level names were used as frequently as basic-level names for identifying objects, and (c) subordinate-level categorizations were as fast as basic-level categorizations. Taken together, these results demonstrate that individual differences in domain-specific knowledge affect the extent that the basic level is central to categorization.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- The basic level in personality-trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991
- Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognitionCognitive Psychology, 1988
- Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review, 1987
- Pictures and names: Making the connectionCognitive Psychology, 1984
- Order of Acquisition of Subordinate-, Basic-, and Superordinate-Level CategoriesChild Development, 1982
- Categorization of Natural ObjectsAnnual Review of Psychology, 1981
- Salience and relativity in classificationAmerican Ethnologist, 1978
- The pragmatics of lexical specificityJournal of Linguistics, 1977
- Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969
- How shall a thing be called?Psychological Review, 1958