Skip to main content

Attribute centrality and imaginative thought

Abstract

Participants’ representations of the concepthuman were examined to differentiate three types of associations between concepts and their component attributes: the capacity of concepts to cue attributes (attribute accessibility), the capacity of attributes to cue concepts (instance accessibility), and the extent to which attributes are thought of as central to concepts (attribute centrality). The findings provide information about the concepthuman itself and, more generally, about the functionally distinct roles those different attribute-concept associations play in guiding imaginative thought. College students listed attributes that differentiate humans from other animals, rated the centrality of those attributes, and listed animals that possess those attributes. Other students drew and described extraterrestrials that possessed some of the attributes that were found to vary across those listing and rating tasks. Rated centrality was the most important determinant of an attribute’s impact on imaginative generation. When the imagined extraterrestrials were supposed to possess attributes that had been rated as central to humans (intelligence, emotional complexity, or opposable thumbs), participants projected more aspects of human form onto them than when the creatures were supposed to possess less central attributes or when attributes were unspecified.

References

  • Ahn, W.-K. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality.Cognition,69, 135–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R. A., &Caplan, L. J. (1987). Category representations and their implications for category structure.Memory & Cognition,15, 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, M. E., &Komatsu, L. K. (1989). Defining features of natural kinds and artifacts.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18, 433–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80(3, Pt. 2).

  • Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns.Language,53, 810–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, Z., &Glucksberg, S. (2000). Interactive property attribution in concept combination.Memory & Cognition,28, 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, C. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and dual-process theory of conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,42, 365–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrig, R. J., &Murphy, G. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts.Language & Cognitive Processes,7, 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., &Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory & Cognition,15, 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,23, 431–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., &Wisniewski, E. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 54–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science,12, 529–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 259–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 27–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., &Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model.Cognitive Science,12, 485–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 434–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J. (1997a). Conceptual combination: Possibilities and esthetics. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 51–81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J. (1997b). When concepts combine.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J. (1998). Property instantiation in conceptual combination.Memory & Cognition,26, 1330–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J., &Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 241–284). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, E. J., &Love, B. C. (1998). Properties versus relations in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 177–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas B. Ward.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ward, T.B., Dodds, R.A., Saunders, K.N. et al. Attribute centrality and imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition 28, 1387–1397 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211839

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211839

Keywords

  • Central Attribute
  • Human Form
  • Creative Generation
  • Emotional Complexity
  • Attribute Accessibility