title: In search of abstraction: the varying abstraction model of categorization.
abstract: A longstanding debate in the categorization literature concerns representational abstraction. Generally, when exemplar models, which assume no abstraction, have been contrasted with prototype models, which assume total abstraction, the former models have been found to be superior to the latter. Although these findings may rule out the idea that total abstraction takes place during category learning and instead suggest that no abstraction is involved, the idea of abstraction retains considerable intuitive appeal. In this article, we propose the varying abstraction model of categorization (VAM), which investigates the possibility that partial abstraction may play a role in category learning. We apply the VAM to four previously published data sets that have been used to argue that no abstraction is involved. Contrary to the previous findings, our results provide support for the idea that some form of partial abstraction can be used in people's category representations.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. wolf.vanpaemel@psy.kuleuven.be
authors.forename: Wolf
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Vanpaemel
authors.forename: Gert
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Storms
mesh_terms: D003210:Concept Formation; D003657:Decision Making; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005795:Generalization, Stimulus; D006801:Humans; D011939:Mental Recall; D015233:Models, Statistical; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D012718:Set, Psychology
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2000 Jan;28(1):41-50
references.pmid: 10714138
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Jul;28(4):800-11
references.pmid: 12109770
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 May;27(3):775-99
references.pmid: 11394680
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2002 Jul;109(3):472-91
references.pmid: 12088241
references.citation: J Math Psychol. 2001 Feb;45(1):149-166
references.pmid: 11178927
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1986 Mar;115(1):39-61
references.pmid: 2937873
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1982 Jan;8(1):37-50
references.pmid: 6210743
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1968 Jul;77(3):353-63
references.pmid: 5665566
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1984 Jan;10(1):104-14
references.pmid: 6242730
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1984 Oct;10(4):638-48
references.pmid: 6239005
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1984 Apr;10(2):234-57
references.pmid: 6242740
references.citation: J Math Psychol. 2000 Mar;44(1):133-152
references.pmid: 10733861
references.citation: Science. 1987 Sep 11;237(4820):1317-23
references.pmid: 3629243
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1987 Jan;13(1):87-108
references.pmid: 2949055
references.citation: Psychometrika. 1967 Sep;32(3):241-54
references.pmid: 5234703
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Mar;10(1):29-44
references.pmid: 12747490
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 Sep;121(3):278-304
references.pmid: 1402702
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1984 Jul;10(3):333-52
references.pmid: 6235306
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):309-32
references.pmid: 15065912
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Sep;28(5):924-40
references.pmid: 12219799
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Feb;21(1):128-48
references.pmid: 7707028
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1986 Oct;18(4):500-49
references.pmid: 3769427