Disentangling similarity judgments from pragmatic judgments

Sloutsky and Fisher (2012) attempt to reframe the results presented in Noles and Gelman (2012) as a pure replication of their original work validating the similarity, induction, naming, and categorization (SINC) model. However, their critique fails to engage with the central findings reported in Noles and Gelman, and their reanalysis fails to examine the key comparison of theoretical interest. In addition to responding to the points raised in Sloutsky and Fisher's (2012) critique, we elaborate on the pragmatic factors and methodological flaws present in Sloutsky and Fisher (2004) that biased children's similarity judgments. Our careful replication of that study suggests that, rather than measuring the influence of labels on judgments of perceptual similarity, the original design measured sensitivity to the pragmatics of task demands. Together, the results reported in Noles and Gelman and the methodological problems highlighted here represent a serious challenge to the validity of the SINC model specifically and the words-as-features view more generally. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Categorization · Cognitive psychology · Cognitive reframing · Linguistics · MEDLINE · Pragmatics · PsycINFO · Replication (statistics · Similarity (geometry · Statistics · Task (project management · Artificial Intelligence · Child and Animal Learning Development · Computer Science · Memory Processes and Influences · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology