学习方式对关系类别间接性学习的影响

心理与行为研究 ›› 2010, Vol. 8 ›› Issue (4): 257-262.

学习方式对关系类别间接性学习的影响

张恒超,阴国恩

天津师范大学心理与行为研究院,天津 300074

收稿日期:2010-09-25 出版日期:2010-12-20 发布日期:2015-01-20
通讯作者: 阴国恩,男,天津师范大学心理与行为研究院教授,博士生导师。Email: yinguoen@gmail.com。
作者简介:张恒超,男,天津师范大学心理与行为研究院博士生。
基金资助:
本研究得到教育部人文社会科学重点基地06JJDXLX003重大研究项目的资助

THE INFLUENCE OF THE WAY OF LEARNING UPON THE INDIRECT LEARNING OF RELATIONAL CATEGORY

Zhang Hengchao,Yin Guoen

Academy of Psychology and Behavior in Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074

Received:2010-09-25 Online:2010-12-20 Published:2015-01-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以96名大学生为被试,以4特征虚拟外星生物为实验材料,通过类别的间接性学习,探讨学习方式对关系类别间接性学习的影响,结果发现：类别的间接性学习条件下,限定分类任务中,被试更倾向于选择关系作为类标准;参照条件下被试限定分类结果与标准的关系类别的分类结果的杰卡德相似性显著高于个人条件;被试分类结果的简单关系类别的杰卡德相似性显著高于复杂关系类别的杰卡德相似性,4特征关系类别的间接性学习中存在单一性效应。

关键词: 关系类别, 间接性学习, 参照性交流, 单一性效应

Abstract: 96 undergraduate students participated in the current study. 4 features virtual aliens were designed as experimental materials. The study focuses on the influence of the way of learning upon the indirect learning of relational category. The results showed that: In the indirect category learning conditions, subjects chose relations as category standards in the limited classification task; With Jaccard similarity between limited classification results and relational categories, the referential communication condition was significantly higher than individual condition. There is significant difference between different types of Jaccard similarity in the limited classification task. In the indirect learning of 4 features relational category, there is unicity.

Key words: relational category, indirect learning, referential communication, unicity

中图分类号:

B842

张恒超,阴国恩. 学习方式对关系类别间接性学习的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2010, 8(4): 257-262.

Zhang Hengchao,Yin Guoen. THE INFLUENCE OF THE WAY OF LEARNING UPON THE INDIRECT LEARNING OF RELATIONAL CATEGORY[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2010, 8(4): 257-262.

参考文献

[1] Blair M, Homa D L. Integrating novel dimensions to eliminate category exceptions: when more is less. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2005, 31(2): 258-271
[2] Asmuth J A, Gentner D. Context sensitivity of relational nouns. Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2005: 163-168
[3] Dixon J A, Bangert A S. On the spontaneous discovery of a mathematical relation during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 2004, 28: 433-449
[4] Fisher A V, Sloutsky V M. When induction meets memory: Evidence for gradual transition from similarity-based to category-based induction. Child Development, 2005, 76: 583-597
[5] Gentner D. The development of relational category knowledge. In L Gershkoff-Stowe & D H Rakison, (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time. (pp. 245-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 2005
[6] Kurtz K J, Boukrina O. Learning relational categories by comparison of paired examples. In L R Gleitman & A K Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2004
[7] Goldstone R L, Steyvers M, Rogosky B J. Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures. Memory and Cognition, 2003, 31: 169-180
[8] Kloos H, Sloutsky V. Are natural kinds psychologically distinct from nominal kinds? Evidence from learning and development. Proceedings of the meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago. 2004
[9] Gentner D, Kurtz K. Relational categories// Ahn W K, Goldstone R L, Love B C, Markman A B, Wolff P W. Categorization inside and outside the lab. Washington, DC: APA. 2005: 151-175
[10] Kemp C, Tenenbaum J B, Niyogi S, et al. A probabilistic model of theory formation. Cognition, 2010, 114: 165-196
[11] 丁小斌, 阴国恩. 基于因果关系归类中的实验效应. 心理与行为研究, 2009, 7(2): 127-133
[12] Doumas L A, Hummel J E, Sandhofer C M. A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 2008, 115(1): 1-43
[13] Feldman J. Minimization of boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature, 2000, 407(6804): 630-633
[14] Feldman J. A catalog of boolean concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2003, 47(1): 75-89
[15] Feldman J. The simplicity principle in human concept learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2003, 12(6): 227-232
[16] Feldman J. An algebra of human concept learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2006, 50(4): 339-368
[17] Lombrozo T. Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology, 2007, 55: 232-257
[18] Barr D J, Kronmuller E. Conversation as a site of category learning and category use. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2006, 47: 181-211
[19] Pietarinen A V. The evolution of semantics and language-games for meaning. Interaction Studies, 2006, 7(1): 79-104
[20] Kronmüller E, Barr D J. Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 2007, 56(3): 436-455
[21] Markman A B, Makin V S. Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1998, 127(4): 331-354
[22] Tyl′en K, Weed E, Wallentin M, Roepstorff A, Frith C. Language as a tool for interacting minds. Mind & Language, 2010, 25(1): 3-29
[23] Brennan S E, Chen X, Dickinson C A, et al. Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 2008, 106: 1465-1477
[24] Brown-Schmidt S. Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, in press. 2009
[25] Shintel H, Keysar B. Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2009, 1: 260-273
[26] Bulloch M J, Opfer J E. What makes relational reasoning smart? Revisiting the perceptual-to-relational shift in the development of generalization. Developmental Science, 2009, 12(1): 114-122
[27] Kloos H, Sloutsky V. What′s behind different kinds of kinds: effects of statistical density on learning and representation of categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2008, 137(1): 52-72
[28] Bangerter A, Clark H H. Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 2003, 27(2): 195-225
[29] Minda J P, Ross B H. Learning categories by making predictions: An investigation of indirect category learning. Memory & Cognition, 2004, 32
[30] Pothos E M, Close J. One or two dimensions in spontaneous classification: A simplicity approach. Cognition, 2008, 107: 581-602
[31] Kapur M, Kinzer C. Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 2007, 55(5): 439-459
[32] Kapur M, Voiklis J, Kinzer C. Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning(CSCL) groups. Computers & Education, 2008, 51(1): 54-66
[33] Voiklis J, Kapur M, Kinzer C, et al. An emergentist account of collective cognition in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 2006