Disentangling similarity judgments from pragmatic judgments: Response to Sloutsky and Fisher (2012).
Disentangling similarity judgments from pragmatic judgments: Response to Sloutsky and Fisher (2012).
复制标题
将相似性判断与实用性判断分开：对 Sloutsky 和 Fisher (2012) 的回应。
DOI：
10.1037/a0027831
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Gelman,SusanA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Noles,NicholausS;Gelman,SusanA
Sloutsky和Fisher（2012）试图重新构建Noles和Gelman（2012）中提出的结果，作为他们验证相似性，归纳，命名和分类（SINC）模型的原始工作的纯粹复制。然而，他们的批评未能与诺尔斯和盖尔曼报告的中心发现相结合，他们的重新分析未能检查理论兴趣的关键比较。除了回应Sloutsky和Fisher（2012）的批评中提出的观点外，我们还详细阐述了Sloutsky和Fisher（2004）中存在的语用因素和方法论缺陷，这些因素使儿童的相似性判断产生偏见。我们仔细复制的研究表明，而不是测量的影响，标签的判断知觉相似性，原来的设计测量敏感性的语用任务的要求。总之，Noles和Gelman报告的结果以及这里强调的方法学问题对SINC模型的有效性提出了严重挑战，而单词作为特征的观点更普遍。
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.