244 • CHAPTER 9 Knowledge
DEMONSTRATION Family Resemblance
Rosch and Mervis’s (1975) instructions were as follows: For each of the following common objects,
list as many characteristics and attributes that you feel are common to these objects. For example,
for bicycles you might think of things they have in common like two wheels, pedals, handlebars,
you ride on them, they don’t use fuel, and so on. For dogs you might think of things they have in
common like having four legs, barking, having fur, and so on. Give yourself about a minute to write
down the characteristics for each of the following items: chair; sofa; mirror; telephoneIf you responded like Rosch and Mervis’s participants, you assigned many of the
same characteristics to chair and sofa. For example, chairs and sofas share the charac-
teristics of having legs, having backs, you sit on them, they can have cushions, and so
on. It is likely, however, that your list contains far less overlap for mirror and telephone,
which are also members of the category “furniture” (see Figure 9.4b). When an item’s
characteristics have a large amount of overlap with the characteristics of many other
items in a category, this means that the family resemblance of these items is high; little
overlap means the family resemblance is low.
Rosch and Mervis showed that there was a strong relationship between family
resemblance and prototypicality, because items high on prototypicality had high family
resemblance. Thus, good examples of the category “furniture,” such as chair and sofa,
share many attributes with other members of this category; poor examples, like mir-
ror and telephone, do not. In addition to the connection between prototypicality and
family resemblance, researchers have determined the following connections between
prototypicality and behavior.Statements About Prototypical Objects Are Verifi ed Rapidly Edward Smith and
coworkers (1974) used a procedure called the sentence verifi cation technique to deter-
mine how rapidly people could answer questions about an object’s category.METHOD Sentence Verifi cation Technique
The procedure for the sentence verifi cation technique is simple. Participants are presented
with statements and asked to answer “yes” if they think the statement is true and “no” if they
think it isn’t. Try this yourself, for the following two statements:An apple is a fruit.
A pomegranate is a fruit.When Smith and coworkers (1974) used this technique, they
found that participants responded faster for objects that are high
in prototypicality (like apple for the category “fruit”) than they
did for objects that are low in prototypicality (like pomegranate;
● Figure 9.5). This ability to judge highly prototypical objects
more rapidly is called the typicality effect.Prototypical Objects Are Named First When participants are
asked to list as many objects in a category as possible, they tend to
list the most prototypical members of the category fi rst (Mervis et al.,
1976). Thus, for “birds,” sparrows would be named before penguins.Prototypical Objects Are Aff ected More by Priming Priming
occurs when presentation of one stimulus facilitates the response to
another stimulus that usually follows closely in time (see Chapter 6,
page 156). Rosch (1975b) demonstrated that prototypical mem-
bers of a category are affected by a priming stimulus more than are650600550500RT (ms)High Medium LowPomegranateApplePrototypicality
● FIGURE 9.5 Results of E. E. Smith et al.’s (1974) sentence
verifi cation experiment. Reaction times were faster for
objects rated higher in prototypicality.Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.