Classification in well-defined and ill-defined categories: evidence for common processing strategies.

Early work in perceptual and conceptual categorization assumed that categories had criterial features and that category membership could be determined by logical rules for the combination of features. More recent theories have assumed that categories have an ill-defined structure and have prosposed probabilistic or global similarity models for the verification of category membership. In the experiments reported here, several models of categorization were compared, using one set of categories having criterial features and another set having an ill-defined structure. Schematic faces were used as exemplars in both cases. Because many models depend on distance in a multidimensional space for their predictions, in Experiment 1 a multidimensional scaling study was performed using the faces of both sets as stimuli, In Experiment 2, subjects learned the category membership of faces for the categories having criterial features. After learning, reaction times for category verification and typicality judgments were obtained. Subjects also judged the similarity of pairs of faces. Since these categories had characteristic as well as defining features, it was possible to test the predictions of the feature comparison model (Smith et al.), which asserts that reaction times and typicalities are affected by characteristic features. Only weak support for this model was obtained. Instead, it appeared that subjects developed logical rules for the classification of faces. A characteristic feature affected reaction times only when it was part of the rule system devised by the subject. The procedure for Experiment 3 was like that for Experiment 2, but with ill-defined rather than well-defined categories. The obtained reaction times had high correlations with some of the models for ill-defined categories. However, subjects' performance could best be described as one of feature testing based on a logical rule system for classification. These experiments indicate that whether or not categories have criterial features, subjects attempt to develop a set of feature tests that allow for exemplar classification. Previous evidence supporting probabilistic or similarity models may be interpreted as resulting from subjects' use of the most efficient rules for classification and the averaging of responses for subjects using different sets of rules.