Inference Is Bliss: Using Evolutionary Relationship to Guide Categorical Inferences
Three experiments, adopting an evolutionary biology perspective, investigated subjects’ inferences about living things. Subjects were told that different enzymes help regulate cell function in two taxa and asked which enzyme a third taxon most likely uses. Experiment 1 and its follow‐up, with colleg...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cognitive science 2011-05, Vol.35 (4), p.712-743 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 743 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 712 |
| container_title | Cognitive science |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Novick, Laura R. Catley, Kefyn M. Funk, Daniel J. |
| description | Three experiments, adopting an evolutionary biology perspective, investigated subjects’ inferences about living things. Subjects were told that different enzymes help regulate cell function in two taxa and asked which enzyme a third taxon most likely uses. Experiment 1 and its follow‐up, with college students, used triads involving amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (reptiles and mammals are most closely related evolutionarily) and plants, fungi, and animals (fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants). Experiment 2, with 10th graders, also included triads involving mammals, birds, and snakes/crocodilians (birds and snakes/crocodilians are most closely related). Some subjects received cladograms (hierarchical diagrams) depicting the evolutionary relationships among the taxa. The effect of providing cladograms depended on students’ background in biology. The results illuminate students’ misconceptions concerning common taxa and constraints on their willingness to override faulty knowledge when given appropriate evolutionary evidence. Implications for introducing tree thinking into biology curricula are discussed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01162.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_866536530</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>866536530</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4762-6cd058ccd19fb272e11e20721406be4777e1beeb0047d0e0c6edb3cd0d581e153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1r2zAUhsXYaNKPvzBEYfTK6ZFkSU4vBm1o00Cg0I9rYcvHnYJjZ1LcJf9-cpOlsKsKgQ7Scw6vHkIogxGL63IxYlKyRGkYjzjEW2BM8dHmCxkeHr6SIQiVJsCZGJDjEBYAoJQYH5EBZ6kSQmZD8jRrKvTYWKSzQG9qF8IVfQmueaW3b23drV3b5H5LH7HO-zr8ciu6bum0cyXSSb7G19Y7m9f0MCickm9VXgc8258n5OXu9nlyn8wfprPJ9TyxqVY8UbYEmVlbsnFVcM2RMeSgYzZQBaZaa2QFYgGQ6hIQrMKyELGplBlDJsUJudjNXfn2d4dhbZYuWKzrvMG2CyZTSoq4IZLn_5GLtvNNDGcyLYQSOh1HKNtB1rcheKzMyrtl_LxhYHrtZmF6u6a3a3rt5l272cTW7_v5XbHE8tD4z3MEfuyBPERZlc8b68IHl3IJQqrI_dxxf1yN208HMJOH6VNfir91r5zz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>873363749</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Inference Is Bliss: Using Evolutionary Relationship to Guide Categorical Inferences</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Novick, Laura R. ; Catley, Kefyn M. ; Funk, Daniel J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Novick, Laura R. ; Catley, Kefyn M. ; Funk, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><description>Three experiments, adopting an evolutionary biology perspective, investigated subjects’ inferences about living things. Subjects were told that different enzymes help regulate cell function in two taxa and asked which enzyme a third taxon most likely uses. Experiment 1 and its follow‐up, with college students, used triads involving amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (reptiles and mammals are most closely related evolutionarily) and plants, fungi, and animals (fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants). Experiment 2, with 10th graders, also included triads involving mammals, birds, and snakes/crocodilians (birds and snakes/crocodilians are most closely related). Some subjects received cladograms (hierarchical diagrams) depicting the evolutionary relationships among the taxa. The effect of providing cladograms depended on students’ background in biology. The results illuminate students’ misconceptions concerning common taxa and constraints on their willingness to override faulty knowledge when given appropriate evolutionary evidence. Implications for introducing tree thinking into biology curricula are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-0213</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-6709</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01162.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21463358</identifier><identifier>CODEN: COGSD5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; Association Learning ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biological Evolution ; Categorization ; Cladograms ; Classification - methods ; Cognition. Intelligence ; Concept Formation ; Curricula ; Effects ; Enzymes ; Evolution ; Evolutionary biology ; Female ; Folkbiology ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Generalization (Psychology) ; Genetic Speciation ; Humans ; Inference ; Knowledge ; Male ; Phylogeny ; Problem Solving ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reasoning. Problem solving ; Semantics ; Taxonomy ; Tree thinking</subject><ispartof>Cognitive science, 2011-05, Vol.35 (4), p.712-743</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. May/Jun 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4762-6cd058ccd19fb272e11e20721406be4777e1beeb0047d0e0c6edb3cd0d581e153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4762-6cd058ccd19fb272e11e20721406be4777e1beeb0047d0e0c6edb3cd0d581e153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1551-6709.2010.01162.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1551-6709.2010.01162.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,1432,27923,27924,45573,45574,46408,46832</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24250356$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21463358$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Novick, Laura R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catley, Kefyn M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Funk, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><title>Inference Is Bliss: Using Evolutionary Relationship to Guide Categorical Inferences</title><title>Cognitive science</title><addtitle>Cogn Sci</addtitle><description>Three experiments, adopting an evolutionary biology perspective, investigated subjects’ inferences about living things. Subjects were told that different enzymes help regulate cell function in two taxa and asked which enzyme a third taxon most likely uses. Experiment 1 and its follow‐up, with college students, used triads involving amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (reptiles and mammals are most closely related evolutionarily) and plants, fungi, and animals (fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants). Experiment 2, with 10th graders, also included triads involving mammals, birds, and snakes/crocodilians (birds and snakes/crocodilians are most closely related). Some subjects received cladograms (hierarchical diagrams) depicting the evolutionary relationships among the taxa. The effect of providing cladograms depended on students’ background in biology. The results illuminate students’ misconceptions concerning common taxa and constraints on their willingness to override faulty knowledge when given appropriate evolutionary evidence. Implications for introducing tree thinking into biology curricula are discussed.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Association Learning</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biological Evolution</subject><subject>Categorization</subject><subject>Cladograms</subject><subject>Classification - methods</subject><subject>Cognition. Intelligence</subject><subject>Concept Formation</subject><subject>Curricula</subject><subject>Effects</subject><subject>Enzymes</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Evolutionary biology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Folkbiology</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Generalization (Psychology)</subject><subject>Genetic Speciation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inference</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Problem Solving</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reasoning. Problem solving</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><subject>Tree thinking</subject><issn>0364-0213</issn><issn>1551-6709</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkF1r2zAUhsXYaNKPvzBEYfTK6ZFkSU4vBm1o00Cg0I9rYcvHnYJjZ1LcJf9-cpOlsKsKgQ7Scw6vHkIogxGL63IxYlKyRGkYjzjEW2BM8dHmCxkeHr6SIQiVJsCZGJDjEBYAoJQYH5EBZ6kSQmZD8jRrKvTYWKSzQG9qF8IVfQmueaW3b23drV3b5H5LH7HO-zr8ciu6bum0cyXSSb7G19Y7m9f0MCickm9VXgc8258n5OXu9nlyn8wfprPJ9TyxqVY8UbYEmVlbsnFVcM2RMeSgYzZQBaZaa2QFYgGQ6hIQrMKyELGplBlDJsUJudjNXfn2d4dhbZYuWKzrvMG2CyZTSoq4IZLn_5GLtvNNDGcyLYQSOh1HKNtB1rcheKzMyrtl_LxhYHrtZmF6u6a3a3rt5l272cTW7_v5XbHE8tD4z3MEfuyBPERZlc8b68IHl3IJQqrI_dxxf1yN208HMJOH6VNfir91r5zz</recordid><startdate>201105</startdate><enddate>201105</enddate><creator>Novick, Laura R.</creator><creator>Catley, Kefyn M.</creator><creator>Funk, Daniel J.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201105</creationdate><title>Inference Is Bliss: Using Evolutionary Relationship to Guide Categorical Inferences</title><author>Novick, Laura R. ; Catley, Kefyn M. ; Funk, Daniel J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4762-6cd058ccd19fb272e11e20721406be4777e1beeb0047d0e0c6edb3cd0d581e153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Association Learning</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biological Evolution</topic><topic>Categorization</topic><topic>Cladograms</topic><topic>Classification - methods</topic><topic>Cognition. Intelligence</topic><topic>Concept Formation</topic><topic>Curricula</topic><topic>Effects</topic><topic>Enzymes</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Evolutionary biology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Folkbiology</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Generalization (Psychology)</topic><topic>Genetic Speciation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inference</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Problem Solving</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reasoning. Problem solving</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><topic>Tree thinking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Novick, Laura R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catley, Kefyn M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Funk, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cognitive science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Novick, Laura R.</au><au>Catley, Kefyn M.</au><au>Funk, Daniel J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Inference Is Bliss: Using Evolutionary Relationship to Guide Categorical Inferences</atitle><jtitle>Cognitive science</jtitle><addtitle>Cogn Sci</addtitle><date>2011-05</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>712</spage><epage>743</epage><pages>712-743</pages><issn>0364-0213</issn><eissn>1551-6709</eissn><coden>COGSD5</coden><abstract>Three experiments, adopting an evolutionary biology perspective, investigated subjects’ inferences about living things. Subjects were told that different enzymes help regulate cell function in two taxa and asked which enzyme a third taxon most likely uses. Experiment 1 and its follow‐up, with college students, used triads involving amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (reptiles and mammals are most closely related evolutionarily) and plants, fungi, and animals (fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants). Experiment 2, with 10th graders, also included triads involving mammals, birds, and snakes/crocodilians (birds and snakes/crocodilians are most closely related). Some subjects received cladograms (hierarchical diagrams) depicting the evolutionary relationships among the taxa. The effect of providing cladograms depended on students’ background in biology. The results illuminate students’ misconceptions concerning common taxa and constraints on their willingness to override faulty knowledge when given appropriate evolutionary evidence. Implications for introducing tree thinking into biology curricula are discussed.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>21463358</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01162.x</doi><tpages>32</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0364-0213 |
| ispartof | Cognitive science, 2011-05, Vol.35 (4), p.712-743 |
| issn | 0364-0213 1551-6709 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_866536530 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Free Content; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; EBSCOhost Education Source |
| subjects | Animals Association Learning Biological and medical sciences Biological Evolution Categorization Cladograms Classification - methods Cognition. Intelligence Concept Formation Curricula Effects Enzymes Evolution Evolutionary biology Female Folkbiology Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Generalization (Psychology) Genetic Speciation Humans Inference Knowledge Male Phylogeny Problem Solving Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reasoning. Problem solving Semantics Taxonomy Tree thinking |
| title | Inference Is Bliss: Using Evolutionary Relationship to Guide Categorical Inferences |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T05%3A18%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Inference%20Is%20Bliss:%20Using%20Evolutionary%20Relationship%20to%20Guide%20Categorical%20Inferences&rft.jtitle=Cognitive%20science&rft.au=Novick,%20Laura%20R.&rft.date=2011-05&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=712&rft.epage=743&rft.pages=712-743&rft.issn=0364-0213&rft.eissn=1551-6709&rft.coden=COGSD5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01162.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E866536530%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=873363749&rft_id=info:pmid/21463358&rfr_iscdi=true |