Cognitive Science Theory: Prototype Theory - Research Proposal Example

Prototype Theory By Introduction The prototype theory is a cognitive science theory, which was developed by Rosch Eleanorin the 1970’s together with other scholars of cognitive psychology. This theory holds that people base their categorization of items or concepts on the aspect of ideal representation, which in this case is also called the prototype. In addition, in this theory, it is argued that a category might have different features, which have the same status. In this case therefore, the example of concepts or items which resemble all or most of these features are ranked as the prototypes of that particular category. On the other hand, those concepts and items that do not share majority features as those of the category will be considered to belong to the specific category; however, these will not be representative of the prototype. Nonetheless, different people apply the prototype theory differently, depending on their level of cognitive development, as well as experience. This study seeks to investigate whether people will take a short response time with Prototype stimulus condition than variant stimulus condition. Literature Review The prototype theory is important, as it provides insights into concepts that are key to psychology. These include intelligence, personality trait, environmental setting, behavioural act, and social situation. This theory has also been influential in the development of new approaches to assessment of personality and psychiatric diagnosis. Nonetheless, different studies have been conducted at various times in order to explore the applicability of the prototype theory in different domains. Hampton (1995) conducted four different experiments in order to test two predictions of the prototype theory. In the first experiment, Hampton tested for the prediction that, when the defining features of a concept are only partially by an instance, then the characteristic (nonnecessary) features of concepts can have an effect on categorization (Hampton, 1995). The subjects in the four experiments were 72, except for experiment two, where they were 36. These included adults, mainly students and city employees. The materials included 26 concepts, from which each experiment chose to utilize. Nonetheless, the experiments were unable to identify clearly the necessary features for a number of concepts. The second prediction that the tests tested was that “the effect of changing a feature on category membership should be the greatest when the probability of categorization is closest to 50%” (Hampton, 1995; p. 686). Nonetheless, the test results showed that the effect of changing a feature was high when all the other features were positive, thus when the probability of categorization was 100%. In another study, Melodie (2011, p. 151) explored whether the prototype theory could be used to capture the fluidity of gender to avoid essentialism and accommodate transgender and queer identities. Melodie focused on the concept of woman. The definition of “woman” is disputed, as this has been attached to cultural influences that are not important. The study has also applied the Prototype theory to sex and gender. This shows that although different characteristics or qualities common to a woman exist, none of them are necessary or central, as there are other features typical to the class that are present (Melodie 2011). Therefore, the fact that one possesses the qualities of a woman does not make them a woman. Fehr & Russell (1991) performed a series of experiments to test the concept of love using the prototype theory. A total of six studies were conducted to examine the concept of love, and results showed that the concept of love is better understood from the perspective of the prototype theory than the classical perspective. In one of the six experiments, the method employed 84 subjects. These were given questionnaires, and were expected to list as many types of love as possible, while pausing after a few minutes or 20 items. Overall, each subject provided about 8.69 responses. Overall, the experiments revealed that the concept of love has many features, yet all the experiences are called by the same name love. Although this is acceptable to the classical perspective, the prototype theory calls for the development of an alternative to the classical perspective that all experiences of a concept, in this case love, share a common essence. Methodology Overview This was a single experiment that sought to test the prediction that people would take shorter response time with prototype stimulus condition than variants stimulus condition. It is a new experiment that has not been conducted before. However, it draws from the method of Posner & Keele (1968). This experiment therefore, will investigate the creation and storage of concepts. Subjects The experiment employed 66 subjects. Each participant judged different versions of the concept in the experiment. All the subjects acted in this one experiment once. The subjects in this experiment were largely drawn from college students. These were aged between 20 and 27. The experiment considered the aspect of gender; therefore, of these students, 21 were female, while the rest (45) were male. The native language of the subjects was a non-factor. Materials The concept to be used in the experiment was drawn up based on the method of Posner & Keele (1968). This was one of the earliest studies that were conducted to explore the representation of concepts in a controlled manner. All the participants were required to access the Cengage Cog Lab, which is an online computer lab. This is where they would find the instructions for the experiment, and participate in the experiment. Design The design of the experiment was the same throughout the experiment. Each participant participated in the training/trial stage and the testing stage of the experiment. Most important is that there was the use of prototypes and non-prototypes in the experiment. These were in the form of dots, which the experiment used. The prototypes were those dots that would fall in either category A or B of dots. On the other hand, the non-prototypes were also called the variants, and these were the dots that neither belonged to category A or B. However, each of the non-prototypes was a specific variant for either category A or B. Procedure The subjects were instructed to log into the Cengage Cog Lab in order to participate in the experiment. First was the training phase, where the subjects were trained on how to go about the instructions, and second was the testing phase. After logging in the online computer library, the participants were asked to look out for a black rectangle. After this, each participant participated in the training/trial phase the experiment. A fixation point was displayed for one second before being replaced by different dots. A participant was expected to classify the dot pattern as A or B. At this stage, each dot was a variation of one or two fixed prototype random dot patterns. In order to make a variation, the subjects were asked to randomly take ten dots from 25 dots in a prototype and change their position. Each participant made 60 trials before proceeding to the testing phase. In the testing phase, the dot patterns were of four types. One dot was a prototype and corresponded to category A, while another was a prototype that corresponded to category B. Each of the remaining two types of dots was a variant of each prototype. Each dot pattern was presented four times in a random order. The role of the subjects was one throughout the whole experiment. They were expected to use the shortest time possible to categorize the dot pattern as A or B. To continue to the next trial, the subjects were to press the space bar on their tablet. For the sake of uniformity in instructions, all the participants used tablets. At the end of the experiment, each participant was instructed on how to save their data to a set of global data. Form here, the results and conclusions of the experiment were to be made. References Fehr, B. & Russell, J. (1991).The Concept of Love Viewed From a Prototype Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (3): 425-438. Hampton, J. (1995). Testing the Prototype Theory of Concept. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 686-708. Melodie J. (2011). Prototype theory: An alternative concept theory for categorizing sex and gender? In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3. Toronto, Canada, pp. 151-159. Read More