类别相似性和呈现方式对类别学习影响的实验研究
|
摘要
近期归类的相似性对比模型的研究中，主要有以下几种理论模型：相似性对比的空间模型、基于特征的对比模型以及最近提出的相似性的结构匹配模型。前人研究表明，在类别学习中，通过结构匹配机制对项目进行对比，能促进类别学习，并且推理学习在类别学习中比归类学习更有优势。本研究认为，只要项目的表征方式及其对比方式满足结构匹配机制的应用条件和规则，人们就容易利用对比匹配学习类别。一般情况下，推理学习条件比归类学习条件更符合结构匹配机制的条件与规则，因而更容易使得人们可以利用结构匹配机制更好的获得类别。
本研究在结构匹配模型观点及其相关研究基础上，同时考虑到使类别材料的表征方式和项目对比的方式这两个结构匹配机制中重要的因素，对两种不同的类别学习条件如何获得类别进行了进一步的研究，考察了结构匹配在不同的类别相似性以及不同的刺激呈现方式下的作用，并且进一步探讨了当成对呈现的项目之间差异更少、共性更多的情况下，更有利于类别的获得。研究包括三个实验，被试是华南师范大学本科生322名。实验材料是虚拟的人工昆虫，通过两种具有可比性的学习任务——归类学习任务和推理学习任务来研究类别材料的相似性和结构匹配对类别学习的影响。归类学习任务是根据项目的特征来预测项目的类别，推理学习任务是根据项目的类别标签和一部分特征来预测项目的缺失特征。
实验一重复验证前人的研究结论并进一步探讨在类别材料的特征维度增加的情况下，结构匹配对类别学习的影响。结果表明，推理学习条件仍然通过结构匹配机制比归类学习条件更容易获得类别信息。实验二考察了在保持类别材料的竞争性，降低类别材料的相似性的情况下，结构匹配对类别获得的影响。结果表明，在推理学习条件下被试学习低相似性材料更困难，但是在调整刺激项目的呈现方式后，使得被试可以运用结构匹配机制对成对项目进行对比，推理学习条件的被试可以重新具有相对于归类学习条件的类别学习优势。实验三考察了在低相似性类别材料的情况下，改变归类学习条件的呈现方式，使得被试可以利用结构匹配机制对比刺激项目，被试同样可以像推理学习条件的被试那样顺利的获得类别知识。更重要的是，我们还发现当成对项目之间存在更少的差异、更多的共性时，类别学习效果会更好。
The models of similarity comparison in the study of categorization in psychology included the Spatial Models, the Feature-based model of comparison and the structural alignment view of similarity. People have found that the structural alignment is helpful in category learning and participants were inclined to learn category by the structural alignment by Inference-earning. We supposed that whether we could learn categories by the structural alignment process depended on how the items were represented and on how those items were placed in correspondence. And Inference-learning was more convenient for those rules to be used because of its own features. Therefore, people learn by inference could learn categories better than those learn by categorization.
Based on the theory and application on the structural alignment, the current study focused on the influence of structural alignment and similarity on category learning when the representation of items and the way they were placed in correspondence were changed. Participants in the research consisted of 322 senior under-graduates in South China Normal University. The materials were schematic drawings of bugs including two different categories. Participants were arranged randomly into two comparable learning conditions: Classification-learning condition and Inference-learning condition. Participants in Classification-learning condition were supposed to learn the category by predicting the category label based on the features of each stimulus and those in Inference-learning learn by predicting the missing feature based on the category label and parts of features of each stimulus.
Analyzed the proportion of category-accordance response, the results of the three experiments showed that: (1) although in the condition of increased features of stimulus, participants in Inference-learning could acquire the categories more easily than those in Classification-learning by structural alignment;(2) with the similarity decreased, participants in Inference-learning even lost their superiority until we modify the manifestation of the stimuli by pairs to let them learning low-similarity categories by structural alignment;(3)in manifestation by pairs of stimuli, participants in Classification-learning could acquire the categories as easily as those in Inference-learning. What's more, the less differences and more commonness between the pairs, the more easily they acquire the categories by structural alignment.
本研究在结构匹配模型观点及其相关研究基础上，同时考虑到使类别材料的表征方式和项目对比的方式这两个结构匹配机制中重要的因素，对两种不同的类别学习条件如何获得类别进行了进一步的研究，考察了结构匹配在不同的类别相似性以及不同的刺激呈现方式下的作用，并且进一步探讨了当成对呈现的项目之间差异更少、共性更多的情况下，更有利于类别的获得。研究包括三个实验，被试是华南师范大学本科生322名。实验材料是虚拟的人工昆虫，通过两种具有可比性的学习任务——归类学习任务和推理学习任务来研究类别材料的相似性和结构匹配对类别学习的影响。归类学习任务是根据项目的特征来预测项目的类别，推理学习任务是根据项目的类别标签和一部分特征来预测项目的缺失特征。
实验一重复验证前人的研究结论并进一步探讨在类别材料的特征维度增加的情况下，结构匹配对类别学习的影响。结果表明，推理学习条件仍然通过结构匹配机制比归类学习条件更容易获得类别信息。实验二考察了在保持类别材料的竞争性，降低类别材料的相似性的情况下，结构匹配对类别获得的影响。结果表明，在推理学习条件下被试学习低相似性材料更困难，但是在调整刺激项目的呈现方式后，使得被试可以运用结构匹配机制对成对项目进行对比，推理学习条件的被试可以重新具有相对于归类学习条件的类别学习优势。实验三考察了在低相似性类别材料的情况下，改变归类学习条件的呈现方式，使得被试可以利用结构匹配机制对比刺激项目，被试同样可以像推理学习条件的被试那样顺利的获得类别知识。更重要的是，我们还发现当成对项目之间存在更少的差异、更多的共性时，类别学习效果会更好。
The models of similarity comparison in the study of categorization in psychology included the Spatial Models, the Feature-based model of comparison and the structural alignment view of similarity. People have found that the structural alignment is helpful in category learning and participants were inclined to learn category by the structural alignment by Inference-earning. We supposed that whether we could learn categories by the structural alignment process depended on how the items were represented and on how those items were placed in correspondence. And Inference-learning was more convenient for those rules to be used because of its own features. Therefore, people learn by inference could learn categories better than those learn by categorization.
Based on the theory and application on the structural alignment, the current study focused on the influence of structural alignment and similarity on category learning when the representation of items and the way they were placed in correspondence were changed. Participants in the research consisted of 322 senior under-graduates in South China Normal University. The materials were schematic drawings of bugs including two different categories. Participants were arranged randomly into two comparable learning conditions: Classification-learning condition and Inference-learning condition. Participants in Classification-learning condition were supposed to learn the category by predicting the category label based on the features of each stimulus and those in Inference-learning learn by predicting the missing feature based on the category label and parts of features of each stimulus.
Analyzed the proportion of category-accordance response, the results of the three experiments showed that: (1) although in the condition of increased features of stimulus, participants in Inference-learning could acquire the categories more easily than those in Classification-learning by structural alignment;(2) with the similarity decreased, participants in Inference-learning even lost their superiority until we modify the manifestation of the stimuli by pairs to let them learning low-similarity categories by structural alignment;(3)in manifestation by pairs of stimuli, participants in Classification-learning could acquire the categories as easily as those in Inference-learning. What's more, the less differences and more commonness between the pairs, the more easily they acquire the categories by structural alignment.
引文
Medin, D.L., &Schaffer, M.M.(1978).Context theory of classification. Psychological Review,85(3),207-238.
Bruner, J. S. Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. A. A study of thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956
Rosch, E. H. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104, 192-233
Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. Concepts and concept formation. Annual Review of Psychology, 1984, 35, 113-138
Komatsu, L.k. Recent blew of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 1992,112,500-502
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. Similarity involving attributes and relations: Judgments of similarity and difference and not inverses. Psychological Science, 1990, 1, 64-69
Smith E E..Concepts and induction. In M.I.Poster (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. 1989,501-526
Kruschke J K.ALCOVE:An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 1992,99,22-44
Malt B C,Sloman S A,Gennari S, Shi M, & Wang Y. Knowing versus naming: Smilarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 1999,40,230-262
Nosofsky, R.M.(1986).Attention, similarity and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1),39-57.
Heit, E., & Rubinstein, J.(1994).Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2),411-422.
Sloman, S.A.(1993).Feature-based induction. Cognition Psychology,25(2), 231-280.
Shepard, R.N.(1964).Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space .Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 1(1),54-87.
Torgerson,W.S.(1965).Multidimensional scaling of similarity. Psychometrika, 30 (4),379-393.
Tversky, A.(1977).Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4),327-352.
Goldstone, R.L., Medin, D.L.,&Gentner, D.(1991).Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgements. Cognitive Psychology, 23,222-262.
Markman, A.B.,&Gentner, D.(1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 431-467.
Gentner, D.(1983).A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
Gentner, D.(1989).The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S . Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning(pp. 199-241 ).New York: Combridge University Press.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B.(1997). Structrual alignment in analogy and similarity. American Psychology, 52(1),45-56.
Markman, A.B.,&Gentner, D.(1997).The effects of alignability on memory. Psychology Science, 8(5),363-367.
Zhang, S., & Markman, A.B.(1998). Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignalble and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing Research,35,413-426.
Hayes,P.J.(1979). The logic of frames. In D. Metzing(Ed.), Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding. (pp.46-61). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Co.
Barsalou,L.W.(1999).Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (4), 577-660.
Markman, A.B.,& Gentner, D.(1993).Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity, Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 517-535.
Markman, A.B.,& Gentner, D.(1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons.Memory and Cognition, 24 (2),235-249.
Gentner, D., & Markman,A.B.(1994).Structural alignment in comparison :No difference without similarity: Psychology Science. 5(3), 152-158.
Markman, A.B.,& Wisniewski,E.J.(1997). Similarity and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 54-70.
Pavlicic,T., & Markman,A.B.(1997). The structure of the verb lexicon: Evidence from a structural alignment approach to similarity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Stanford, CA.
Markman,A.B.(1996).Structure alignment in similarity and difference judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 227-230.
Bassok,M., & Medin, D.L.(1997).Birds of feather flock together. Similarity judgements with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(3),311-336.
Yamauchi,T& Markman,A.B.(2000).Learning categories composed of varying instances: The effects of classification, inference, and structural alignment. Memory & Cognition,28(1), 64-78.
Yamauchi, T.,Love, B.C.& Markman,A.B.(2002).Learning nonlinearly separable category by inference and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 585-593.
莫雷，赵海燕，维度的结合与分离对归类不确定性预测的影响，2002(5)，470—479。
莫雷，常建芳，类别特征相似性与竞争性对归类的影响，《心理学报》，2003(5)。
常建芳，莫雷，类别不确定时的预测推理研究综述，《心理科学》，2003(1)，159。
常建芳，莫雷，归类研究中的相似性对比模型研究综述，《心理科学》，2003(4)。
唐雪峰，赵海燕，莫雷，归类及推理研究的几个数学理论模型，《心理学动态》，2000(3)，56—60。
刘丽虹，王才康，莫雷，认知心理学归类理论述评，《心理科学》，1998(6)，540—543。
韩劢，莫雷，分类研究中的原型与样例观，《心理学探新》，2000(2)，12—16。
Bruner, J. S. Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. A. A study of thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956
Rosch, E. H. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104, 192-233
Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. Concepts and concept formation. Annual Review of Psychology, 1984, 35, 113-138
Komatsu, L.k. Recent blew of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 1992,112,500-502
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. Similarity involving attributes and relations: Judgments of similarity and difference and not inverses. Psychological Science, 1990, 1, 64-69
Smith E E..Concepts and induction. In M.I.Poster (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. 1989,501-526
Kruschke J K.ALCOVE:An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 1992,99,22-44
Malt B C,Sloman S A,Gennari S, Shi M, & Wang Y. Knowing versus naming: Smilarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 1999,40,230-262
Nosofsky, R.M.(1986).Attention, similarity and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1),39-57.
Heit, E., & Rubinstein, J.(1994).Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2),411-422.
Sloman, S.A.(1993).Feature-based induction. Cognition Psychology,25(2), 231-280.
Shepard, R.N.(1964).Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space .Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 1(1),54-87.
Torgerson,W.S.(1965).Multidimensional scaling of similarity. Psychometrika, 30 (4),379-393.
Tversky, A.(1977).Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4),327-352.
Goldstone, R.L., Medin, D.L.,&Gentner, D.(1991).Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgements. Cognitive Psychology, 23,222-262.
Markman, A.B.,&Gentner, D.(1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 431-467.
Gentner, D.(1983).A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
Gentner, D.(1989).The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S . Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning(pp. 199-241 ).New York: Combridge University Press.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B.(1997). Structrual alignment in analogy and similarity. American Psychology, 52(1),45-56.
Markman, A.B.,&Gentner, D.(1997).The effects of alignability on memory. Psychology Science, 8(5),363-367.
Zhang, S., & Markman, A.B.(1998). Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignalble and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing Research,35,413-426.
Hayes,P.J.(1979). The logic of frames. In D. Metzing(Ed.), Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding. (pp.46-61). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Co.
Barsalou,L.W.(1999).Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (4), 577-660.
Markman, A.B.,& Gentner, D.(1993).Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity, Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 517-535.
Markman, A.B.,& Gentner, D.(1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons.Memory and Cognition, 24 (2),235-249.
Gentner, D., & Markman,A.B.(1994).Structural alignment in comparison :No difference without similarity: Psychology Science. 5(3), 152-158.
Markman, A.B.,& Wisniewski,E.J.(1997). Similarity and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 54-70.
Pavlicic,T., & Markman,A.B.(1997). The structure of the verb lexicon: Evidence from a structural alignment approach to similarity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Stanford, CA.
Markman,A.B.(1996).Structure alignment in similarity and difference judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 227-230.
Bassok,M., & Medin, D.L.(1997).Birds of feather flock together. Similarity judgements with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(3),311-336.
Yamauchi,T& Markman,A.B.(2000).Learning categories composed of varying instances: The effects of classification, inference, and structural alignment. Memory & Cognition,28(1), 64-78.
Yamauchi, T.,Love, B.C.& Markman,A.B.(2002).Learning nonlinearly separable category by inference and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 585-593.
莫雷，赵海燕，维度的结合与分离对归类不确定性预测的影响，2002(5)，470—479。
莫雷，常建芳，类别特征相似性与竞争性对归类的影响，《心理学报》，2003(5)。
常建芳，莫雷，类别不确定时的预测推理研究综述，《心理科学》，2003(1)，159。
常建芳，莫雷，归类研究中的相似性对比模型研究综述，《心理科学》，2003(4)。
唐雪峰，赵海燕，莫雷，归类及推理研究的几个数学理论模型，《心理学动态》，2000(3)，56—60。
刘丽虹，王才康，莫雷，认知心理学归类理论述评，《心理科学》，1998(6)，540—543。
韩劢，莫雷，分类研究中的原型与样例观，《心理学探新》，2000(2)，12—16。