Expertise and category-based induction (2000)
| Venue: | Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition |
| Citations: | 26 - 1 self |
BibTeX
@ARTICLE{Proffitt00expertiseand,
author = {Julia Beth Proffitt and Douglas L. Medin and John D. Coley},
title = {Expertise and category-based induction},
journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition},
year = {2000},
volume = {26},
pages = {811--828}
}
Years of Citing Articles
OpenURL
Abstract
The authors examined inductive reasoning among experts in a domain. Three types of tree experts (landscapers, taxonomists, and parks maintenance personnel) completed 3 reasoning tasks. In Experi-ment 1, participants inferred which of 2 novel diseases would affect "more other kinds of trees " and provided justifications for their choices. In Experiment 2, the authors used modified instructions and asked which disease would be more likely to affect "all trees. " In Experiment 3, the conclusion category was eliminated altogether, and participants were asked to generate a list of other affected trees. Among these populations, typicality and diversity effects were weak to nonexistent. Instead, experts ' reasoning was influenced by "local " coverage (extension of the property to members of the same folk family) and causal-ecological factors. The authors concluded that domain knowledge leads to the use of a variety of reasoning strategies not captured by current models of category-based induction. Cognitive psychologists are increasingly interested in concep-tual functions beyond categorization (e.g., Barsalou & Hale, 1992; Markman, Yamauchi, & Makin, 1997; Pazzani, 1991; Ross, 1996, 1997; Wisniewski, 1995). Particularly, they have focused on the use of categories in reasoning and have proposed a number of formal models of category-based reasoning (e.g., Heit, 1998; Mc-







