{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035375868603916616, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020846493998736577, 'mean_word_length': 5.6, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 1, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Similarity and Categorization: The Reversed Association Test

Similarity and Categorization: The Reversed Association Test Takashi Yamauchi (tya@psyc.tamu.edu) Department of Psychology, Mail Stop 4235 Texas AM Hampton et al., 2007). On the empirical side, a number of studies have demonstrated functional independence between similarity and categorization judgments. Some feature information that affects a categorization task is nonetheless ineffective in a similarity judgment task, and vice versa (see Han & Ramscar, 2001). On the basis of this discrepancy, several theorists have proposed that categorization relies on multiple processes – a similarity-based associative process and a rule-based abstract process (Sloman, 1996). However, this view has been severely criticized on two fronts. First, the empirical evidence for the multiple- processes view of categorization also turned out to be consistent with a similarity-based single process view (Nosofsky & Johansen, 2000; Pothos, 2005). Second, the evidence supporting the multiple-processes view is primarily based on the notion of functional independence, 1 which by itself is not very informative in linking cognitive processes and task performance (Van Orden, 2001). Thus, it is unclear whether similarity and categorization tasks are mediated by the same or different process(es). In this article, I apply the reversed association theory developed by Dunn and Kirsner (1988) and investigate the relationship between categorization and similarity. In what follows, I will first illustrate the problems with interpreting