More on parts in object concepts

Response to Tversky and Hemenway

Gregory L. Murphy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This articleresponds to the comments ofTversky and Hemenway (1991), who criticized the logic, stimuli, and data analysis of Murphy (1991). It is argued here that their objections do not mitigate the conclusions drawn by Murphy. In particular, the objection that the stimuli were not natural enough to reveal differences between category levels seems to presuppose an answer to the question under investigation. However, further experimentation with other stimuli might resolve this issue empirically.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)443-447
Number of pages5
JournalMemory & Cognition
Volume19
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1991

Fingerprint

Stimulus
Object Concept
Experimentation
Logic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

More on parts in object concepts : Response to Tversky and Hemenway. / Murphy, Gregory L.

In: Memory & Cognition, Vol. 19, No. 5, 09.1991, p. 443-447.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Murphy, Gregory L. / More on parts in object concepts : Response to Tversky and Hemenway. In: Memory & Cognition. 1991 ; Vol. 19, No. 5. pp. 443-447.
@article{f9143c40d0584779a64b664ed18b97ad,
title = "More on parts in object concepts: Response to Tversky and Hemenway",
abstract = "This articleresponds to the comments ofTversky and Hemenway (1991), who criticized the logic, stimuli, and data analysis of Murphy (1991). It is argued here that their objections do not mitigate the conclusions drawn by Murphy. In particular, the objection that the stimuli were not natural enough to reveal differences between category levels seems to presuppose an answer to the question under investigation. However, further experimentation with other stimuli might resolve this issue empirically.",
author = "Murphy, {Gregory L.}",
year = "1991",
month = "9",
doi = "10.3758/BF03199566",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "443--447",
journal = "Memory and Cognition",
issn = "0090-502X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - More on parts in object concepts

T2 - Response to Tversky and Hemenway

AU - Murphy, Gregory L.

PY - 1991/9

Y1 - 1991/9

N2 - This articleresponds to the comments ofTversky and Hemenway (1991), who criticized the logic, stimuli, and data analysis of Murphy (1991). It is argued here that their objections do not mitigate the conclusions drawn by Murphy. In particular, the objection that the stimuli were not natural enough to reveal differences between category levels seems to presuppose an answer to the question under investigation. However, further experimentation with other stimuli might resolve this issue empirically.

AB - This articleresponds to the comments ofTversky and Hemenway (1991), who criticized the logic, stimuli, and data analysis of Murphy (1991). It is argued here that their objections do not mitigate the conclusions drawn by Murphy. In particular, the objection that the stimuli were not natural enough to reveal differences between category levels seems to presuppose an answer to the question under investigation. However, further experimentation with other stimuli might resolve this issue empirically.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025766298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025766298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/BF03199566

DO - 10.3758/BF03199566

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 443

EP - 447

JO - Memory and Cognition

JF - Memory and Cognition

SN - 0090-502X

IS - 5

ER -