Abstract
Artifacts tend to be categorized in a graded (i.e., continuous) manner, whereas natural categorization tends to be absolute (i.e., discrete). This domain-specific categorization is assumed to reflect a domain difference in representation. However, another tenable but untested explanation is that graded categorization arises from uncertainty, which is greater in artifact categories than in natural categories. Confidence ratings were used as an index of certainty in two experiments that tested whether confidence in category judgments can explain the apparent gradedness of those categories. Both experiments revealed that artifact categories were more graded and were judged with greater confidence than were natural categories. Confidence and gradedness were negatively correlated within both domains. Thus, confidence did indeed predict gradednesswithin the artifact and natural domains but failed to predict the difference in gradednessbetween those domains. There is more to gradedness than just uncertainty.
Article PDF
References
Barr, R. A., &Caplan, L. J. (1987). Category representations and their implications for category structure.Memory & Cognition,15, 397–418.
Diesendruck, G., &Gelman, S. A. (1999). Domain differences in absolute judgments of category membership: Evidence for an essentialist account of categorization.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 338–346.
Estes, Z. (2003). Domain differences in the structure of artifactual and natural categories.Memory & Cognition,31, 199–214.
Hampton, J. A. (1998). Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories.Cognition,65, 137–165.
Johnson-Laird, P. L. (1983).Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kalish, C. W. (1995). Essentialism and graded membership in animal and artifact categories.Memory & Cognition,23, 335–353.
Kalish, C. W. (2002). Essentialist to some degree: Beliefs about the structure of natural kind categories.Memory & Cognition,30, 340–352.
Malt, B. C. (1990). Features and beliefs in the mental representation of categories.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 289–315.
McCloskey, M. E., &Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets?Memory & Cognition,6, 462–472.
Rey, G. (1983). Concepts and stereotypes. {Cognition},15, 237–262.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104, 192–232.
Wagner, W. (1984). Social comparison of opinions: Similarity, ability, and the value-fact distinction.Journal of Psychology,117, 197–202.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was funded in part by a Faculty Research Grant from the University of Georgia Research Foundation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Estes, Z. Confidence and gradedness in semantic categorization: Definitely somewhat artifactual, maybe absolutely natural. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 1041–1047 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196734
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196734