title: The conceptual centrality of causal cycles.
abstract: How do causal cycles affect judgments of conceptual centrality? Generally, a feature is central to a concept to the extent that other features in the concept depend on it, thereby rendering it immutable from the concept (Sloman, Love, & Ahn, 1998). Previous research on conceptual centrality has focused primarily on features involved in four major types of dependency structures: simple cause-effect relations, causal chains, common-cause structures, and common-effect structures. Causal cycles are a fifth type of dependency structure commonly reported in people's real-life concepts, yet to date, they have been relatively ignored in research on conceptual centrality. The results of six experiments suggest that previously held assumptions about the conceptual representation of cycles are incorrect. We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of theory-based concepts.
authors.affiliation: Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115-5000, USA. n.kim@neu.edu
authors.forename: Nancy S
authors.initials: NS
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Christian C
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Luhmann
authors.forename: Margaret L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Pierce
authors.forename: Megan M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Ryan
mesh_terms: D001245:Association Learning; D015984:Causality; D002965:Classification / Q000379:methods*; D003657:Decision Making; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D005793:Generalization, Psychological; D006801:Humans; D015233:Models, Statistical; D011337:Probability Learning; D035501:Uncertainty
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1997 Feb;32(1):49-96
references.pmid: 9038245
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Jul;32(4):659-83
references.pmid: 16822139
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2009 Feb;41(1):128-136
references.pmid: 19182132
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Nov;29(6):1141-59
references.pmid: 14622052
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Dec;131(4):451-76
references.pmid: 12500858
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2007 Mar;43(2):294-308
references.pmid: 17352540
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Sep;130(3):323-60
references.pmid: 11561914
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1999 May;27(3):526-37
references.pmid: 10355241
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2004 Jan;87(1):1-32
references.pmid: 14698687
references.citation: Am J Psychol. 2002 Spring;115(1):33-65
references.pmid: 11868194
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Dec;41(4):361-416
references.pmid: 11121260
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 Jun;121(2):222-36
references.pmid: 1534834
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Aug;14(4):635-9
references.pmid: 17972725
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2002 Sep 1;26(5):521-562
references.pmid: 21442007
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Sep;10(3):517-32
references.pmid: 14620347
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Feb;15(1):81-8
references.pmid: 18605484
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2003 Jan;31(1):155-65
references.pmid: 12699151
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Dec;69(2):135-78
references.pmid: 9894403
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2005 May;50(3):264-314
references.pmid: 15826612
references.citation: Cognition. 1995 Mar;54(3):299-352
references.pmid: 7720361
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:227-54
references.pmid: 16318595