心理学研究
Online ISSN : 1884-1082
Print ISSN : 0021-5236
ISSN-L : 0021-5236
命名における構造, 評価, および被験者間一致
今井 四郎
著者情報
ジャーナル フリー

1968 年 39 巻 5 号 p. 231-240

詳細
抄録

The aim of this study was to investigate the factors influencing how Ss name subsets of stimuli. The stimuli in both experiments were selected from a set of eight different pictures (shown in Fig. 2) or a set of 16 different geometrical forms. In Exp. I, each S was presented in a random order all 36 stimulus subsets of one or two stimuli which could be constructed from the eight different pictures. The Ss gave each subset three different names, the one be considered the most appropriate, the second most appropriate, and the third most appropriate. In Exp. II, eight different subsets of three different pictures and ten different subsets of three geometrical forms were selected (shown in Fig. 3). For every subset of three stimuli, all three alternative classifications into two subsets were presented to each S. Thus, each S was presented 24 classifications of three stimuli into groups for the pictures and 30 similar classifications for the geometrical forms. Each subset to be classified was drawn on a separate white card and the order of presentation was randomized. For all 54 cards, each S rated the ‘goodness’ of the classification and then gave the most appropriate name to each subset. Different Ss were used in the two experiments.
The results indicate:
1. There was greater agreement among Ss as to the most appropriate subset name than to less appropriate subset names. (Table 2)
2. There was greater agreement among Ss as to subset names for better classifications than for poorer classifications. The rank order correlation between the classification goodness and the agreement was significantly high.
3. If the subset names are organized hierarchically, the name considered the most appropriate name was generally a lower order name (e. g., mammals), the second most appropriate name was a higher order name (e. g., animals), and the third most appropriate name was a still higher order name (e. g., living things). Subsets of two stimuli normally received a higher order name than one-stimulus subsets. (Table 3)
4. when two subsets are presented together, names of the two subsets are usually at the same hierarchical level. However, when each subset was independently named, the names were generally at different levels since one subset consisted of two stimuli and the other subset consisted of only one stimulus. For example, suppose dog and bat were placed in one subset, and duck was placed in the other subset. In Exp. I, where each subset was independently named, the subset dog and bat would be named ‘mammals’ and the subset duck would be named ‘duck’. In Exp. II, the subset dog and bat would still be named ‘mammals’ but now the subset duck would be named ‘birds’. The name of the larger subset was also affected by the relationship between the subsets. Suppose the two-stimuli subset dog and bat was presented first with the one-stimulus subset duck and then was presented with the one-stimulus subset apple. When the subset dog and bat was presented with the subset duck, 64% of the Ss named dog and bat ‘mammals’ and only 6% of the Ss named this subset ‘animals’. However, when it was presented with the subset apple, 64% of the Ss named dog and bat ‘animals’ and 23% of the Ss named this subset ‘mammals’. Therefore, subset names depend both on intra-subset structure and on inter-subset structure.
5. The results 2 and 4 were supported by the results obtained from the geometrical form subsets.

著者関連情報
© 公益社団法人 日本心理学会
次の記事
feedback
Top