The Development of
Categorization and Category Learning
Vladimir M. Sloutsky
The Ohio University
sloutsky.1@osu.edu
Even early in development, humans exhibit the ability to form categories and overlook differences for the sake of generality. The ability to generalize by treating discriminable entities as members of an equivalence class manifests itself in a variety of interrelated processes. For instance, (a) upon learning that an animal is called “fep,” one can generalize this name to other similar animals; (b) upon learning that the fep is a mammal, one can generalize the category membership to other feps; and (c) upon learning that feps use serotonin for neural transmission, one can generalize this knowledge to other feps and possibly to other mammals. These forms of generalization are referred to as (a) label extension, or naming, (b) categorization, and (c) projective induction. While the importance of generalization is widely accepted, several critical issues remain highly contested. How do people form categories and how does this ability arise? What processes underlie categorization? How are categories mentally represented, and how do these representations change in the course of cognitive development?
The major focus of this course will be on the development of generalization. We will begin with a brief historical overview of approaches to categorization and category learning. We will then review current approaches to the problem, focus on major phenomena in the study of generalization, and consider contested issues. We will consider the role of associative mechanisms in generalization and will conclude with a discussion of the role of generalization in cognitive development.
Day 1. Historical approaches to
categorization and category learning.
Categorization as generalization
The Classical approach
The Similarity approach
The Knowledge-based approach
The Ability of each approach to account for the development of categorization
Similarity and selective attention
Required
Medin, D. L (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469-1481.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention,
similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.
Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. I., & Jenkins, H. M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs, 75, (13, Whole No. 517).
Optional
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow,
J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking.
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press.
Day 2: Different kinds of kinds? The role of category structure in category learning and category representation.
Do different theories describe acquisition of different categories?
Statistical structure of a category: Dense and sparse categories
Statistical structure and category learning
Are there different kinds of kinds?
Required
Kloos, H. & Sloutsky, V. M. (in press). What’s behind different kinds of kinds: Effects of statistical density on learning and representation of categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., & Solomon, K. O. (2000). Are there kinds of concepts? Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 121-147.
Optional
Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105, 442-481.
Day
3: The development of categorization
Early generalization: Induction, categorization, and naming
Conceptual and associative approaches to early generalization
Similarity, Induction, Categorization and Naming (SINC)
Contentious issues in early generalization
Required
Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986a). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183-209.
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press. (Chapters 9-10).
Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004). Induction and categorization in young children: A similarity-based model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 166-188.
Sloutsky, V. M. (2003). The role of similarity in the development of categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 246-251.
Sloutsky, V. M., & Spino, M. A. (2004). Naive theory and transfer of learning: When less is more and more is less. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 528-535.
Optional
French, R. M., Mareschal, D., Mermillod, M., & Quinn, P. C. (2004). The role of bottom-up processing in perceptual categorization by 3-to 4-month-old infants: Simulations and data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 382-397.
Jones, S. S., & Smith, L. B. (1993). The place of perception in children’s concepts. Cognitive Development, 8, 113–139.
Sloutsky, V. M., Kloos, H., & Fisher, A. V. (In press). When looks are everything: Appearance similarity versus kind information in early induction. Psychological Science.
Gelman, S. & Waxman S. R. (In press). Looking beyond looks: Comments on Sloutsky, Kloos, and Fisher, “When looks are everything: Appearance similarity versus kind information in early induction” Psychological Science.
Sloutsky, V. M., Kloos. H., & Fisher, A. V. (In press). What’s beyond looks? Reply to Gelman and Waxman. Psychological Science.
Day
4: Categorization, similarity, and memory
Category-level versus item-specific processing
Category-level processing and memory illusions
Why children can have more accurate memory than adults
Required
Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004). When development and learning decrease memory: Evidence against category-based induction in children. Psychological Science, 15, 553-558.
Fisher, A. V., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2005). When induction meets memory: Evidence for gradual transition from similarity-based to category-based induction. Child Development, 76, 583-597.
Optional
Koutstaal, W., & Schacter, D. L. (1997). Gist-based false recognition of pictures in older and younger adults. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 555 – 583.
Day 5: The role of words in early categorization
Why do words affect categorization?
Semantic approach
General-auditory approach: Auditory overshadowing.
Auditory overshadowing, cross-modal processing, and conceptual development
Required
Robinson, C.W., & Sloutsky, V.M. (2004). Auditory Dominance and its change in the course of development. Child Development, 75, 1387-1401.
Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (In press). Visual processing speed: Effects of auditory input on visual processing. Developmental Science.
Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (In press). Linguistic labels and categorization in infancy: Do labels facilitate or hinder?. Infancy.
Sloutsky, V. M, & Napolitano, A.C. (2003). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. Child Development, 74, 822-833.
Sloutsky, V. M., & Robinson, C. W. (In press). The role of words and sounds in visual processing: From overshadowing to attentional tuning. Cognitive Science.
Optional
Balaban, M. T., & Waxman, S. R. (1997). Do words facilitate object categorization in 9-monthold infants? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 3-26.
Gelman, S. A., &
Coley J. (1991). Language and categorization:
The acquisition of natural kind terms. In S. A. Gelman, &
J. P. Byrnes (Eds.). Perspectives
on language and thought: Interrelations in development (146-196).
Napolitano, A. C., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2004). Is a picture worth a thousand words? The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children. Child Development, 75, 1850-1870.
Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12- 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 257-302.
Xu, F. (2002). The role of language in acquiring object kind concepts in infancy. Cognition, 85, 223-250.
Afternoon
section meetings
Afternoon sessions will be used to explore specific topics in depth and to present additional material.
Assessment
Students who take the course for credit will be asked to write a brief (5-7 pages) paper that critical reviews one or more of the articles read in class, or to comment on other work that is related to the issues discussed in the class.
Vladimir M. Sloutsky
The Ohio State University
Vladimir Sloutsky received his Ph.D. in 1986 from the University of Moscow and the Russian Academy of Education. He joined the Ohio State University faculty in 1991. In 2003, he was appointed Director of the Center for Cognitive Science at Ohio State. He is also a member of the Governing Board of the Cognitive Science Society. His research interests include learning and cognitive development and interrelationships between language and cognition. For more information, visit his website at: http://cogdev.cog.ohio-state.edu/.