Editing Cognitive categorization (section)

== Overview ==

'''Categories''' are distinct collections of concrete or abstract instances (category members) that are considered equivalent by the cognitive system. Using category knowledge requires one to access [[mental representation]]s that define the core features of category members (cognitive psychologists refer to these category-specific mental representations as [[concept]]s).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Murphy |first1=Gregory L. |last2=Medin |first2=Douglas L. |date=1985 |title=The role of theories in conceptual coherence. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.289 |journal=Psychological Review |language=en |volume=92 |issue=3 |pages=289–316 |doi=10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.289 |pmid=4023146 |issn=1939-1471|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Markman |first1=Arthur B. |last2=Ross |first2=Brian H. |date=2003 |title=Category use and category learning. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.592 |journal=Psychological Bulletin |language=en |volume=129 |issue=4 |pages=592–613 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.592 |pmid=12848222 |issn=1939-1455|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 

To categorization theorists, the categorization of objects is often considered using [[Taxonomy (biology)|taxonomies]] with three hierarchical levels of [[abstraction]].<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite journal |last1=Rosch |first1=Eleanor |last2=Mervis |first2=Carolyn B |last3=Gray |first3=Wayne D |last4=Johnson |first4=David M |last5=Boyes-Braem |first5=Penny |date=1976-07-01 |title=Basic objects in natural categories |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285%2876%2990013-X |journal=Cognitive Psychology |language=en |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=382–439 |doi=10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X |s2cid=5612467 |issn=0010-0285}}</ref> For example, a plant could be identified at a high level of abstraction by simply labeling it a flower, a medium level of abstraction by specifying that the flower is a rose, or a low level of abstraction by further specifying this particular rose as a dog rose. Categories in a taxonomy are related to one another via class inclusion, with the highest level of abstraction being the most inclusive and the lowest level of abstraction being the least inclusive.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> The three levels of abstraction are as follows:
* '''Superordinate level, Genus''' (e.g., Flower) - The highest and most inclusive level of abstraction. Exhibits the highest degree of generality and the lowest degree of within-category similarity.<ref name="Markman, A. B. 1997">{{Cite journal |last1=Markman |first1=Arthur B. |last2=Wisniewski |first2=Edward J. |year=1997 |title=Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.54 |journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition |language=en |volume=23 |issue=1 |pages=54–70 |doi=10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.54 |s2cid=18585288 |issn=1939-1285|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
* '''Basic Level, Species''' (e.g., Rose) - The middle level of abstraction. Rosch and colleagues (1976) suggest the basic level to be the most cognitively efficient.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Basic level categories exhibit high within-category ''similarities'' and high between-category ''dissimilarities''. Furthermore, the basic level is the most inclusive level at which category exemplars share a generalized identifiable shape.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Adults most-often use basic level object names, and children learn basic object names first.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
* '''Subordinate level''' (e.g., Dog Rose) - The lowest level of abstraction. Exhibits the highest degree of specificity and within-category similarity.<ref name="Markman, A. B. 1997"/>