A family of 4 different process models of single-cue concept learning was extended to 2-category conjunctive concept learning. The fit of these 4 extended models to data from 120 Ss solving conjunctive problems over a wide range of stimulus complexity was assessed. None of the models did a thoroughly satisfactory job of fitting the data over all levels of stimulus complexity. Possible reasons for this lack of fit were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BourneL. E.RestleF.Mathematical theory of concept identification. Psychol. Rev., 1959, 66, 278–296.
2.
BowerG.TrabassoT.Concept identification. In AtkinsonR. C. (Ed.), Studies in mathematical psychology. Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1964. Pp. 32–96.
3.
BrunerJ. S.GoodnowJ. J.AustinG. A.A study of thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.
4.
ChumbleyJ. I.The memorization and manipulation of sets of hypotheses in concept learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Univer., 1967.
5.
EricksonJ. R.Hypothesis sampling in concept identification. J. exp. Psychol., 1968, 76, 12–18.
6.
GreggL. W.SimonH. A.Process models and stochastic theories of simple concept formation. J. math. Psychol., 1967, 4, 246–276.
7.
HaygoodR.BourneL. E.Attribute and rule learning aspects of conceptual behavior. Psychol. Rev., 1965, 72, 175–195.
8.
NahinskyI. D.A test of axioms of all-or-none concept identification models. J. verb. Learn, verb. Behav., 1968, 7, 593–601.
9.
RestleF.The selection of strategies in cue learning. Psychol. Rev., 1962, 69, 329–343.
10.
TrabassoT.BowerG.Component learning in the four-category concept problem. J. math. Psychol., 1964, 1, 143–169. (a).
11.
TrabassoT.BowerG.Memory in concept identification. Psychon. Sci., 1964, 1, 133–134. (b).
12.
TrabassoT.BowerG.Attention in learning: Theory and research. New York: Wiley, 1968.
