Abstract
Participants’ representations of the concepthuman were examined to differentiate three types of associations between concepts and their component attributes: the capacity of concepts to cue attributes (attribute accessibility), the capacity of attributes to cue concepts (instance accessibility), and the extent to which attributes are thought of as central to concepts (attribute centrality). The findings provide information about the concepthuman itself and, more generally, about the functionally distinct roles those different attribute-concept associations play in guiding imaginative thought. College students listed attributes that differentiate humans from other animals, rated the centrality of those attributes, and listed animals that possess those attributes. Other students drew and described extraterrestrials that possessed some of the attributes that were found to vary across those listing and rating tasks. Rated centrality was the most important determinant of an attribute’s impact on imaginative generation. When the imagined extraterrestrials were supposed to possess attributes that had been rated as central to humans (intelligence, emotional complexity, or opposable thumbs), participants projected more aspects of human form onto them than when the creatures were supposed to possess less central attributes or when attributes were unspecified.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahn, W.-K. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality.Cognition,69, 135–178.
Barr, R. A., &Caplan, L. J. (1987). Category representations and their implications for category structure.Memory & Cognition,15, 397–418.
Barton, M. E., &Komatsu, L. K. (1989). Defining features of natural kinds and artifacts.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18, 433–447.
Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80(3, Pt. 2).
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns.Language,53, 810–842.
Estes, Z., &Glucksberg, S. (2000). Interactive property attribution in concept combination.Memory & Cognition,28, 28–34.
Gagné, C. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and dual-process theory of conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,42, 365–389.
Gerrig, R. J., &Murphy, G. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts.Language & Cognitive Processes,7, 205–230.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., &Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 50–67.
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory & Cognition,15, 55–71.
Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,23, 431–467.
Markman, A. B., &Wisniewski, E. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 54–70.
Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science,12, 529–562.
Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 259–288.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 27–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., &Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model.Cognitive Science,12, 485–527.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 434–453.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1997a). Conceptual combination: Possibilities and esthetics. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 51–81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1997b). When concepts combine.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 167–183.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1998). Property instantiation in conceptual combination.Memory & Cognition,26, 1330–1347.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 241–284). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Love, B. C. (1998). Properties versus relations in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 177–202.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ward, T.B., Dodds, R.A., Saunders, K.N. et al. Attribute centrality and imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition 28, 1387–1397 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211839
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211839