Categorization of Natural Objects

By Carolyn B. Mervis, Eleanor Rosch. 1981

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

An interpretive examination of the development of cultural sensitivity in international business (2008, background): “People deal with complex environments by comparing new events to categories already stored in memory (Mervis & Rosch, 1981; Rosch, 1975; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976).”
Flexing the Frame: TMT Framing and the Adoption of Non-Incremental Innovations in Incumbent Firms (2017, unknown): “Mervis and Rosch (1981) define three key levels of vertical inclusion that describe classification hierarchies: (1) a basic level, consisting of the most typical and most used categories (e.g., perceiving an object as a (3) a superordinate level, located above the basic level and having lower…”
On developing a knowledge base in infancy. (1998, background): “This view fell out of favor with the ascendancy of the hypothesis that basic-level concepts are the first to be formed ( Mervis & Rosch, 1981 ), but evidence is accumulating in support of the differentiation view of concept formation.”
Legitimacy‐as‐Feeling: How Affect Leads to Vertical Legitimacy Spillovers in Transnational Governance (2014, unknown): “In classes, the prototype embodies the most commonly observed traits among all members of that category in that it represents the central tendency of comparable category members (Mervis and Rosch, 1981).”
The YLI-MED Corpus: Characteristics, Procedures, and Plans (2015, background): “…a corpus of videos that ﬁt into a particular category (i.e., that depict a speciﬁed type of event) assumes non-classical category theory (Rosch 1977a, Mervis and Rosch 1981, Lakoﬀ 1987), i.e., assumes that people think of categories in terms of a core or central prototype for what they expect a…”
Category Spanning, Evaluation, and Performance: Revised Theory and Test on the Corporate Law Market (2016, unknown): “For more standard demands, according to the prototype-based view, a product’s features contain enough information and act as stimuli to which an audience responds by comparing current features to an ideal type (Mervis & Rosch, 1981).”
The role of theories in conceptual coherence. (1985, background): “The major problems with this view as a structural principle are that many categories may not conform to the classical view (see Medin & Smith, 1984; Mervis & Rosen, 1981; Smith & Medin, 1981, for reviews) and, equally seriously, that defining attributes do not ensure coherence.”
A Rational Analysis of Rule-Based Concept Learning (2008, background): “The degree of typicality, or recognition rate for training examples, is often taken as a useful proxy for category centrality (Mervis & Rosch, 1981) because it correlates with many of the same experimental measures (such as reaction time).”