COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 7, 573-605 (1975)
Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal
Structure of Categories
ELEANOR ROSCH AND CAROLYN B. MERVIS
University of California, Berkeley
Six experiments explored the hypothesis that the members of categories which
are considered most prototypical are those with most attributes in common with
other members of the category and least attributes in common with other cat-
egories. In probabilistic terms, the hypothesis is that prototypicality is a function
of the total cue validity of the attributes of items. In Experiments 1 and 3, sub-
jects listed attributes for members of semantic categories which had been pre-
viously rated for degree of prototypicality. High positive correlations were ob-
tained between those ratings and the extent of distribution of an item’s attributes
among the other items of the category. In Experiments 2 and 4, subjects listed su-
perordinates of category members and listed attributes of members of contrasting
categories. Negative correlations were obtained between prototypicality and su-
perordinates other than the category in question and between prototypicality and
an item’s possession of attributes possessed by members of contrasting cat-
egories. Experiments 5 and 6 used artificial categories and showed that family
resemblance within categories and lack of overlap of elements with contrasting
categories were correlated with ease of learning, reaction time in identifying an
item after learning, and rating of prototypicality of an item. It is argued that fam-
ily resemblance offers an alternative to criterial features in defining categories.
As speakers of our language and members of our culture, we know
that a chair is a more reasonable exemplar of the categoryfurniture than
a radio, and that some chairs fit our idea or image of a chair better than
others. However, when describing categories analytically, most tradi-
tions of thought have treated category membership as a digital, all-or-
none phenomenon. That is, much work in philosophy, psychology,
linguistics, and anthropology assumes that categories are logical
bounded entities, membership in which is defined by an item’s posses-
This research was supported by grants to the first author (under her former name
Eleanor Rosch Heider) by the National Science Foundation (GB-38245X), by the Grant
Foundation, and by the National Institutes of Mental Health (1 ROI MH24316-01). We
wish to thank David Johnson, Joseph Romeo, Ross Quigley, R. Scott Miller, Steve Frank,
Alina Furnow, and Louise Jones for help with testing and analysis of the data. We also
wish to thank Ed Smith, Ed Shoben, and Lance Rips for permission to refer to the multi-
dimensional scaling study of superordinate categories which was performed jointly with
them. Carolyn Mervis is now at Cornell Universtiy. She was supported by an NSF Predoc-
toral Fellowship during the research. Requests for reprints should be sent to Eleanor
Rosch, Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
94720.
573
Copyright 8 1975 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
574 ROSCH AND MERVIS
sion of a simple set of criterial features, in which all instances possessing
the criteria1 attributes have a full and equal degree of membership.
In contrast to such a view, it has been recently argued (see Lakoff,
1972; Rosch, 1973; Zadeh, 1965) that some natural categories are analog
and must be represented logically in a manner which reflects their analog
structure. Rosch (1973, 1975b) has further characterized some natural
analog categories as internally structured into a prototype (clearest cases,
best examples of the category) and nonprototype members, with nonpro-
totype members tending toward an order from better to poorer ex-
amples. While the domain for which such a claim has been demonstrated
most unequivocally is that of color (Berlin & Kay, 1969; Heider, 1971,
1972; Mervis, Catlin, & Rosch, 1975; Rosch, 1974, in press-c, in press-
d), there is also considerable evidence that natural superordinate se-
mantic categories have a prototype structure. Subjects can reliably rate
the extent to which a member of a category fits their idea or image of
the meaning of the category name (Rosch, 1973, 1975a), and such
ratings predict performance in a number of tasks (Rips, Shoben & Smith,
1973; Rosch, 1973, 1975a, in press-c, 1975b; Smith, Rips, & Shoben,
1974; Smith, Shoben, & Rips, 1974).
However, there has, as yet, been little attention given to the problem
of how internal structure arises. That is, what principles govern the for-
mation of category prototypes and gradients of category membership?
For some categories which probably have a physiological basis, such as
colors, forms, and facial expressions of basic human emotions, proto-
types may be stimuli which are salient prior to formation of the cate-
gory, whose salience, at the outset, determines the categorical structur-
ing of those domains (Ekman, 1971; McDaniel, Note 1; Rosch, 1974,
1975b). For the artificial categories which have been used in prototype
research-such as families of dot patterns (Posner, 1973) and artificial
faces (Reed, 1972)-the categories have been intentionally structured
and/or the prototypes have been defined so that the prototypes were
central tendencies of the categories. For most domains, however, proto-
types do not appear to precede the category (Rosch, in press-a) and
must be formed through principles of learning and information pro-
cessing from the items given in the category. The present research was
not intended to provide a processing model of the learning of categories
or formation of prototypes; rather, our intention was to examine the
stimulus relations which underlie such learning. That is, the purpose of
the present research was to explore one of the major structural princi-
ples which, we believe, may govern the formation of the prototype
structure of semantic categories.
This principle was first suggested in philosophy; Wittgenstein (1953)
argued that the referents of a word need not have common elements in
order for the word to be understood and used in the normal functioning
FAMILY RESEMBLANCES 575
of language. He suggested that, rather, a family resemblance might be
what linked the various referents of a word. A family resemblance rela-
tionship consists of a set of items of the form AB, BC, CD, DE. That is,
each item has at least one, and probably several, elements in common
with one or more other items, but no, or few, elements are common to
all items. The existence of such relationships in actual natural language
categories has not previously been investigated empirically.
In the present research, we viewed natural semantic categories as net-
works of overlapping attributes; the basic hypothesis was that members
of a category come to be viewed as prototypical of the category as a
whole in proportion to the extent to which they bear a family resem-
blance to (have attributes which overlap those of) other members of the
category. Conversely, items viewed as most prototypical of one cate-
gory will be those with least family resemblance to or membership in
other categories. In natural categories of concrete objects, the two as-
pects of family resemblance should coincide rather than conflict since it
is reasonable that categories tend to become organized in such a way
that they reflect the correlational structure of the environment in a
manner which renders them maximally discriminable from each other
(Rosch, in press-a; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, in
press).
The present structural hypothesis is closely related to a cue validity
processing model of classification in which the validity of a cue is de-
fined in terms of its total frequency within a category and its propor-
tional frequency in that category relative to contrasting categories.
Mathematically, cue validity has been defined as a conditional probabil-
ity-specifically, the frequency of a cue being associated with the cate-
gory in question divided by the total frequency of that cue over all rele-
vant categories (Beach, 1964; Reed, 1972). Unfortunately, cue validity
has been treated as a model in conflict with a prototype model of cate-
gory processing where prototypes are operationally defined solely as at-
tribute means (Reed, 1972). If prototypes are defined more broadly-for
example, as the abstract representation of a category, or as those cate-
gory members to which subjects compare items when judging category
membership, or as the internal structure of the category defined by sub-
jects’ judgments of the degree to which members fit their “idea or
image” of the category-then prototypes should coincide rather
than conflict with cue validity. That is, if natural categories of concrete
objects tend to become organized so as to render the categories maxi-
mally discriminable from each other, it follows that the maximum possible
cue validity of items within each category will be attained (Rosch et al.,
in press). The principle of family resemblance relationships can be re-
stated in terms of cue validity since the attributes most distributed among
members of a category and least distributed among members of con-
576 ROSCH AND MERVIS
trasting categories are, by definition, the most valid cues to membership
in the category in question. We use the term family resemblance rather
than cue validity primarily to emphasize that we are dealing with a de-
scription of structural principles and not with a processing model. We be-
lieve that the principle of family resemblance relationships is a very gen-
eral one and is applicable to categories regardless of whether or not they
have features common to members of the category or formal criteria for
category membership.
In all of the studies of the present research, family resemblances were
defined in terms of discrete attributes such as has legs, you drive it, or
the letter B is a member. These are the kinds of features of natural se-
mantic categories which can be most readily reported and the features
normally used in definitions of categories by means of lists of formal cri-
teria. Insofar as the context in which an attribute occurs as part of a
stimulus may always affect perception and understanding of the attri-
bute, discrete attributes of this type may be an analytic myth. How-
ever, in one sense, the purpose of the present research was to show that
it is not necessary to invoke attribute interactions or higher order gestalt
properties of stimuli (such as those used by Posner, 1973; Reed, 1972;
Rosch, Simpson, & Miller, Note 2) in order to analyze the prototype
structure of categories. That is, even at the level of analysis of the type
of discrete attributes normally used in definitions of categories by means
of criteria1 features, we believe there is a principle of the structure of
stimulus sets, family resemblances, which can be shown to underlie cat-
egory prototype structure.
The present paper reports studies using three different types of cate-
gory; superordinate semantic categories such as furniture and vehicle,
basic level semantic categories such as chair and car, and artificial cat-
egories formed from sets of letter strings. For each type of stimulus,
both aspects of the family resemblance hypothesis (that the most proto-
typical members of categories are those with most attributes in common
with other members of that category and are those with least attributes
in common with other categories) were tested.
Superordinate semantic categories are of particular interest because
they are sufficiently abstract that they have few, if any, attributes com-
mon to all members (Rosch et al., in press). Thus, such categories may
consist almost entirely of items related to each other by means of family
resemblances of overlapping attributes. In addition, superordinate cat-
egories have the advantage that their membership consists of a finite
number of names of basic level categories which can be adequately sam-
pled. Superordinate categories have the disadvantage that they do not
have contrasting categories (operationally defined below); thus, the sec-
ond half of the family resemblance hypothesis (that prototypical
members of categories have least resemblance to other categories) had
FAMILY RESEMBLANCES 577
to be tested indirectly by measuring membership in, rather than attri-
butes in common with, other superordinate categories.
Basic level semantic categories are of great interest because they are
the level of abstraction at which the basic category cuts in the world
may be made (Rosch, in press-a; Rosch et al., in press). However, basic
level categories present a sampling problem since their membership con-
sists of an infinite number of objects. On the positive side, basic level
categories do form contrast sets, thus, making possible a direct test of the
second part of the family resemblance hypothesis.
Artificial categories were needed because they made possible the
study of prototype formation with adequate controls. In natural language
domains of any type, categories have long since evolved in culture and
been learned by subjects. Both prototypes and the attribute structure of
categories are independent variables; we can only measure their correla-
tions. Artificial categories are of use because attribute structures can be
varied in a controlled manner and the development of prototypes studied
as a dependent variable.
PART I: SUPERORDINATE SEMANTIC CATEGORIES
Experiment 1
Although it is always possible for an ingenious philosopher or psychol-
ogist to invent criteria1 attributes defining a category, earlier research
has shown that actual subjects rate superordinate semantic categories as
having few, if any, attributes common to all members (Rosch et al., in
press). Thus, if the “categorical” nature of these categories is to be ex-
plained, it appeared most likely to reside in family resemblances between
members. Part of the purpose of the present experiment was to obtain
portraits of the distribution of attributes of members of a number of su-
perordinate natural language categories. Part of the hypothesis was that
category members would prove to bear a family resemblance relationsip
to each other. The major purpose of the experiment, however, was to
observe the relation between degree of relatedness between members of
the category and the rated prototypicality of those members. The spe-
cific hypothesis was that a measure of the degree to which an item bore
a family resemblance to other members of the category would prove sig-
nificantly correlated with previously obtained prototypicality ratings of
the members of the category.
Method
Subjects. Subjects were 400 students in introductory psychology
classes who received this 10 min task as part of their classroom work.
Stimuli. The categories used were the six most common categories of
concrete nouns in English, determined by a measure of word frequency
578 ROSCH AND MERVIS
(Kucera & Francis, 1967). All of the categories were ones for which
norms for the prototypicality of items had already been obtained for
50-60 category members (Rosch, 1975a). These norms were derived
from subjects’ ratings of the extent to which each item fit their “idea or
image” of the meaning of the category name. (The rating task and in-
structions were very similar to those used in Experiment 3 of the present
research. A complete account of the methods for deriving the six su-
perordinate categories and complete norms for all items of the six cat-
egories are provided in Rosch, in press-d.) The 20 items from each cate-
gory used in the present experiment were chosen to represent the full
range of goodness-of-example ranks. These items are listed, in their
goodness-of-example order, in Table 1.
Procedure. Each of the 120 items shown in Table 1 was printed at the
top of a page, and the pages assembled into packets consisting of six
items, one from each superordinate category. Items were chosen ran-
domly within a category such that each subject who received an item
received it with different items from the other five categories and received
the items representing each category in a different order. Each item was
rated by 20 subjects. Each subject rated six items, one from each cate-
gory.
Subjects were asked to list the attributes possessed by each item. In-
structions were:
This is a very simple experiment to find out the characteristics and attributes
that people feel are common to and characteristic of different kinds of ordinary
everyday objects. For example, for bicycles you might think of things they have
in common like two wheels, pedals, handlebars, you ride on them, they don’t use
fuel, etc. For dogs you might think of things they have in common like having
four legs, barking, having fur, etc.
There are six pages following this one. At the top of each is listed the name of
one common object. For each page, you’ll have a minute and a half to write down
all of the attributes of that object that you can think of. But try not to just free as-
sociate-for example, if bicycles just happen to remind you of your father, don’t
write down father.
Okay-you’ll have a minute and a half for each page. When I say turn to the
next page, read the name of the object and write down the attributes or character-
istics you think are characteristic of that object as fast as you can until you’re
told to turn the page again.
Measurement of family resemblance. To derive the basic measure of
family resemblance, for each category, all attributes mentioned by sub-
jects were listed and each item, for which an attribute had been listed,
was credited with that attribute. Two judges reviewed the resulting table
and indicated cases in which an attribute was clearly and obviously
false. These attributes were deleted from the tabulation. The judges also
indicated any attribute which had been listed for one or more items, but
was clearly and obviously true of another item in the category for which
TA
B
LE
1
SU
PE
R
O
R
D
IN
A
TE
C
A
TE
G
O
R
IE
S A
N
D
IT
EM
S
U
SE
D
I
N
E
X
PE
R
IM
EN
TS
1
A
N
D
2
C
at
eg
or
y
It
em
Fu
rn
it
ur
e
V
eh
ic
le
Fr
ui
t
W
ea
po
n
2 3
4 6
8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C
ha
ir
So
fa
Ta
bl
e
D
re
ss
er
D
es
k
B
ed
B
oo
kc
as
e
Fo
ot
st
oo
l
La
m
p
Pi
an
o
C
us
hi
on
M
ir
ro
r
R
ug
R
ad
io
St
ov
e
C
lo
ck
Pi
ct
ur
e
C
lo
se
t
Va
se
Te
le
ph
on
e
C
ar
O
ra
ng
e
G
un
Tr
uc
k
Ap
pl
e
Kn
ife
B
us
B
an
an
a
Sw
or
d
M
ot
or
cy
cl
e
Pe
ac
h
B
om
b
Tr
ai
n
Pe
ar
H
an
d
gr
en
ad
e
Tr
ol
le
y
ca
r
A
pr
ic
ot
Sp
ea
r
B
ic
yc
le
Pl
um
C
an
no
n
A
irp
la
ne
G
ra
pe
s
B
ow
a
nd
a
rr
ow
B
oa
t
St
ra
w
be
rr
y
C
lu
b
Tr
ac
to
r
G
ra
pe
fr
ui
t
Ta
nk
ca
rt
Pi
ne
ap
pl
e
Te
at
-g
as
W
he
el
ch
ai
r
B
lu
eb
er
ry
w
hi
p
Ta
nk
Le
m
on
Ic
ep
ic
k
R
af
t
W
at
er
m
el
on
Fi
st
s
Sl
ed
H
on
ey
de
w
R
oc
ke
t
H
or
se
Po
m
eg
ra
na
te
Po
is
on
B
lim
p
D
at
e
Sc
is
so
rs
Sk
at
es
C
oc
on
ut
W
or
ds
W
he
el
ba
rr
ow
To
m
at
o
Fo
ot
El
ev
at
or
O
liv
e
Sc
re
w
dr
iv
er
Ve
ge
ta
bl
e
Pe
as
C
ar
ro
ts
St
ri
ng
b
ea
ns
Sp
in
ac
h
B
ro
cc
ol
i
A
sp
ar
ag
us
C
or
n
C
au
lif
lo
w
er
B
ru
ss
el
s
pr
ou
Le
tt
uc
e
B
ee
ts
To
m
at
o
Li
m
本文档为【Family_resemblances_Studies_in_the_internal_structure_of_categories】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑,
图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。