More on parts in object concepts: Response to Tversky and Hemenway

Gregory L. Murphy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This articleresponds to the comments ofTversky and Hemenway (1991), who criticized the logic, stimuli, and data analysis of Murphy (1991). It is argued here that their objections do not mitigate the conclusions drawn by Murphy. In particular, the objection that the stimuli were not natural enough to reveal differences between category levels seems to presuppose an answer to the question under investigation. However, further experimentation with other stimuli might resolve this issue empirically.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)443-447
Number of pages5
JournalMemory & Cognition
Volume19
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1991

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'More on parts in object concepts: Response to Tversky and Hemenway'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this