Psychological Development and Education ›› 2012, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (2): 193-200.

Previous Articles     Next Articles

The Influence of the Relational Complexity upon the Indirect Learning of Relational Category

ZHANG Heng-chao1, YIN Guo-en2   

  1. 1. Department of Psychology in Tianjin University Commerce, Tianjin 300134;
    2. Academy of Psychology and Behavior in Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074
  • Online:2012-03-15 Published:2012-03-15

Abstract: 216 undergraduate students participated in the current study.The study designed three kinds of experimental materials.The relational complexity is constantly changing.It arranged the condition of indirect category learning of individual functional prediction and the condition of indirect category learning relation to referential communication.This study explored the influence of the relational complexity upon the indirect learning of relational category.The results showed that:The learning effect of referential communication condition changes with relational complexity during the function prediction under the condition of indirect learning of relational category.The participants under the condition of referential communication scored significantly higher points than individual condition during the indirect learning of 4 features'complex relation.There is no significant difference during the indirect learning of 6 features' complex relation plus second-order same function simple relation.The participants under individual condition scored significantly higher points than the condition of referential communication during the indirect learning of 6 features'complex relation plus second-order different function simple relation.

Key words: relational complexity, relational category, indirect learning, referential communication, referential convention

CLC Number: 

  • G442
[1] Bangerter,A.,&Clark,H.H.(2003).Navigating joint projects with dialogue.Cognitive Science,27(2),195-225.
[2] Barr,D.J.,&Kronmuller,E.(2006).Conversation as a site of category learning and category use.Psychology of Learning and Motivation,47,181-211.
[3] Blair,M.,&Homa,D.L.(2005).Integrating novel dimensions to eliminate category exceptions:when more is less.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,31(2), 258-271.
[4] Brennan,S.E.,Chen,X.,Dickinson,C.A.,Neider,M.B.,& Zelinsky,G.J.(2008).Coordinating cognition:The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search.Cognition,106(3),1465-1477.
[5] Brown,Schmidt,S.(2009).Partner specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog.Journal of Memory and Language,in press.
[6] Clark,H.H.(1996).Using language.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[7] Clark,H.H.,&Krych,M.(2004).Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding.Journal of Memory and Language,50 (1),62-81.
[8] Corter,J.,&Gluck,M.(1992).Explaining basic categories:Feature predictability and information.Psychological Bulletin,111(2),291-303.
[9] Gentner,D.,&Kurtz,K.(2005).Relational categories.In W.K. Ahn.,R.L.,Goldstone.,B.C.Love.,A.B.Markman.,&P.W.Wolff.(Eds.),Categorization inside and outside the lab(pp.151-175).Washington,DC:APA.
[10] Hulstijn,J.,&Maudet,N.(2006).Uptake and joint action.Cognitive Systems Research,7(2-3),175-191.
[11] Johnson,D.W.,&Johnson,R.T.(1989).Cooperation and Competition:Theory and Research.Edina,MN:Interaction Book Company.
[12] Kronmüller,E.,&Barr,D.J.(2007).Perspective free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery from preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language,56(3),436-455.
[13] Lombrozo,T.(2007).Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology,55(3),232-257. Malt,B.C.,&Sloman,S.A.(2004).Conversation and convention: Enduring influences on name choice for common objects.Memory and Cognition,32(8),1346-1354.
[14] Markman,A.B.,&Makin,V.S.(1998).Referential communication and category acquisition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127(4),331-354.
[15] Markman,A.B.,&Ross,B.H.(2003).Category use and category learning.Psychological Bulletin,4(129),592-613.
[16] Nosofsky,R.M.,Stanton,R.D.,&Zaki,S.R.(2005). Procedural interference in perceptual classification:Implicit learning or cognitive complexity?Memory&Cognition,33(7),1256-1271.
[17] Pietarinen,A.V.(2006).The evolution of semantics and language? games for meaning.Interaction Studies,7(1),79-104.
[18] Pothos,E.M.,&Close,J.(2008).One or two dimensions in spontaneous classification:A simplicity approach.Cognition,107(2),581-602.
[19] Shintel,H.,&Keysar,B.(2009).Less is more:A minimalist account of joint action in communication.Topics in Cognitive Science,1(2),260-273.
[20] Stalnaker,R.C.(2002).Common ground.Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5-6),701-721.
[21] Todd,P.,&Gigerenzer,G.(2007).Environments that make us smart:Ecological rationality.Current Directions in Psychological Science,16(3),167-171.
[22] Tyl'en,K.,Weed,E.,Wallentin,M.,Roepstorff,A.,&Frith,C.(2010).Language as a tool for interacting minds.Mind&Language,25(1),3-29.
[23] Wilkes-Gibbs,D.,&Clark,H.(1992).Coordinating beliefs in conversation.Journal of Memory and Language,31(2),183-194.
[24] 张恒超,阴国恩(2010).学习方式对关系类别间接性学习的影响.心理与行为研究,8(4),257-262.
[1] ZHANG Heng-chao. Comparison of the Learning Process and Selective Attention between Referential Communicators [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2014, 30(1): 55-60,74.
[2] ZHANG Heng-chao. “Audience Design” of Referential Communication [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2013, 29(5): 552-560.
[3] ZHANG Li, XIN Zi-qiang, Gulizha, Bokeli. The Developmental Characteristics of Analogical Reasoning on Tasks with Different Complexity in 5~9 Years Old Children [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2010, 26(6): 584-591.
[4] HU Qing-fen, XIN Zi-qiang, ZHANG Li, ZHANG Li. Preliminary Report on Figural Representational Capacity Test for Children [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2008, 24(1): 113-118.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!