Pölzler Thomas, Hannikainen Ivar R
Department of Philosophy, University of Graz, Attemsgasse 25/II, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Department of Philosophy I, University of Granada, Campus de la Cartuja, 18011 Granada, Spain.
Synthese. 2022;200(5):382. doi: 10.1007/s11229-022-03859-9. Epub 2022 Sep 8.
According to the so-called Classical Theory, concepts are mentally represented by individually necessary and jointly sufficient application conditions. One of the principal empirical objections against this view stems from evidence that people judge some instances of a concept to be more than others. In this paper we present and discuss four empirical studies that investigate the extent to which this 'typicality effect' holds for the concept of . Through multiple operationalizations of typicality, our studies yielded evidence for a strong effect of this kind: (1) Participants tended to recall the same core examples of the concept in a free-listing task. (2) They judged some basic needs to be more typical than others. (3) The items that were judged to be more typical were listed more frequently in the free-listing task. (4) These items were listed earlier on in the free-listing task. (5) Typical basic needs, as well as non needs, were classified faster than atypical basic needs in a reaction time study. These findings suggest that the concept of basic needs may have a non-classical (e.g., exemplar or prototype) structure. If so, the quest for a simple and robust intensional analysis of the concept may be futile.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11229-022-03859-9.
根据所谓的经典理论，概念在心理上由单独必要且共同充分的应用条件来表征。针对这一观点的主要实证反驳之一源于这样的证据：人们认为一个概念的某些实例比其他实例更具[概念名称未给出]。在本文中，我们呈现并讨论了四项实证研究，这些研究调查了这种“典型性效应”在[概念名称未给出]概念上的适用程度。通过对典型性的多种操作化，我们的研究得出了这种强烈效应的证据：（1）在自由列举任务中，参与者倾向于回忆该概念的相同核心示例。（2）他们认为某些基本需求比其他基本需求更具典型性。（3）被判断为更具典型性的项目在自由列举任务中被列出的频率更高。（4）这些项目在自由列举任务中被更早列出。（5）在反应时间研究中，典型的基本需求以及非需求比非典型的基本需求分类得更快。这些发现表明基本需求的概念可能具有非经典（例如，范例或原型）结构。如果是这样，对该概念进行简单而有力的内涵分析的探索可能是徒劳的。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s11229-022-03859-9获取的补充材料。
