Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization.

By Kathy E. Johnson, Carolyn B. Mervis. 1997

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Barbara C. Malt
2. D. Narvaez
3. D. Lapsley
4. Pedro Morgado
5. Steven A. Sloman
6. Tz-Ying Wu
7. Scott Atran
8. N. Ross

Citations in the corpus

• Evolution and Devolution of Knowledge: A Tale of Two Biologies (2004, background): “There is evidence that biological experts have a more specific basic level than novices, but this describes results from a novice perspective (Dougherty 1978; Johnson & Mervis 1997; Tanaka & Taylor 1991).We thus propose a reframing.”
• Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. (2003, background): “Johnson & Eilers 1998; Johnson & Mervis 1997, 1998; Gauthier et al. 2000).”
• Solving Long-tailed Recognition with Deep Realistic Taxonomic Classifier (2020, background): “Rather than striving for discrimination between all objects in the world, they adopt class taxonomies [4, 5, 36, 37, 56], where classes are organized hierarchically at different levels of granularity, e.”
• The Psychological Foundations of Everyday Morality and Moral Expertise. (2005, background): “This image of the moral agent has dominated psychological research on moral development for nearly five decades.”
• Reducing Satiation: The Role of Categorization Level (2008, background): “All three indexes displayed an acceptable level of consistency as the Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .77 to .85.”
• Universality and language specificity in object naming (2003, background): “…it has been suggested that different populations of people make their primary categorizations at different levels of abstraction, reflecting their level of expertise in the domain (e.g., Berlin, 1992; Dougherty, 1978; Johnson & Mervis, 1997; Rosch et al., 1976; Tanaka & Taylor, 1991).”