The present study explores the structure of moviegoers knowledge about actors and actresses considered as categories of semantic knowledge. For this purpose, participants generated either names of actors or names of actresses and, in a second phase of the experiment, judged their responses in terms of aesthetic preference and frequency of instantiation. Both categories exhibited a graded structure in terms of typicality but while frequency of instantiation was the strongest response determinant for actresses, aesthetic preference was the strongest response determinant for actors. Moviegoing frequency was positively related to the number of names produced for actors but not for actresses. Main conclusions suggest that actresses and actors are relevant semantic categories for moviegoers. Possible factors for differences between the two categories are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonC. A.BerkowitzL.DonnersteinE.HuesmannL. R.JohnsonJ. D.LinzD.MalamuthN. M., & WartellaE. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 81–110.
2.
BarsalouL. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629–654.
3.
BattigW.G., & MontagueW. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 80(3, pt. 2).
4.
BihagenE., & Katz-GerroT. (2000). Culture consumption in Sweden: The stability of gender differences. Poetics, 27, 327–349.
5.
BredatS. (1993). Retrieval failures in face naming. Memory, 1, 351–366.
6.
CapitaniE.LaiaconaM., & BarbarottoR. (1999). Gender affects word retrieval of certain categories in semantic fluency tasks. Cortex, 35, 273–278.
7.
FaveA. Della, & BassiM. (2003). Italian adolescents and leisure: The role of engagement and optimal experience. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 99, 79–94.
8.
HamptonJ. A., & GardinerM. M. (1983). Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 491–516.
9.
HodgesJ. R.SalmonD. P., & ButtersR. (1993). Recognition and naming of famous faces in Alzheimer's disease: A cognitive analysis. Neuropsychologia, 31, 775–788.
10.
LinE. L.MurphyG. L., & ShobenE. J. (1997). The effect of prior episodes processing on basic level superiority. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 25–48.
11.
MarquesJ. F. (1994, September). Gone with the wind: Remembering actors but not characters of movies. Paper presented at the VII ESCOP Conference, Lisbon.
12.
MarshE. J.MeadeM. L., & RoedigerH. L. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 519–536.
13.
MartindaleC., & MooreK. (1988). Priming, prototypicality and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661–670.
14.
MeansM. L., & VossJ. F. (1985). Star Wars: Study of expert and novice knowledge structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 746–757.
15.
MurphyG. L. (2004). The big book of concepts.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
RoschE. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In MooreT. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111–144). New York: Academic Press.
17.
RoschE. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.
18.
RoschE., & MervisC. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
19.
RoschE.MervisC. B.GrayW. D.JohnsonD. M., & Boyes-BrahemP. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
20.
SehulsterJ. R. (1996). In my era: Evidence for the perception of a special period of the past. Memory, 4, 145–158.
21.
TanakaJ. W., & TaylorM. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?Cognitive Psychology, 23, 457–482.
22.
van OverscheldeJ. P.RawsonK. A., & DunloskyJ. (2004). Category norms: An updated and extended version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 289–335.
23.
VillateJ. C.GottesdienerH., & VrignaudP. (2004). Typicality and 20th century painters categorization. In FróisJ. P.AndradeP., & MarquesJ. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics “Art and Science” (pp. 616–619), Lisboa: IAEA.
