Cited by 34Categorization, perception, and languageVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesMemory Processes and Influences

Explanation recruits comparison in a category-learning task

Edwards, Brian J., Williams, Joseph J., Gentner, Dedre, Lombrozo, Tania·2019·Cognition

Abstract

Generating explanations can be highly effective in promoting category learning; however, the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. We propose that engaging in explanation can recruit comparison processes, and that this in turn contributes to the effectiveness of explanation in supporting category learning. Three experiments evaluated the interplay between explanation and various comparison strategies in learning artificial categories. In Experiment 1, as expected, prompting participants to explain items' category membership led to (a) higher ratings of self-reported comparison processing and (b) increased likelihood of discovering a rule underlying category membership. Indeed, prompts to explain led to more self-reported comparison than did direct prompts to compare pairs of items. Experiment 2 showed that prompts to compare all members of a particular category ("group comparison") were more effective in supporting rule learning than were pairwise comparison prompts. Experiment 3 found that group comparison (as assessed by self-report) partially mediated the relationship between explanation and category learning. These results suggest that one way in which explanation benefits category learning is by inviting comparisons in the service of identifying broad patterns.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.12.011

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Asking people to generate verbal explanations for their observations supports the discovery of broad and simple patterns.

    “As a third category, studies find that asking people to generate verbal explanations for their observations supports the discovery of broad and simple patterns (Edwards et al., 2019;Walker et al., 2017;Williams & Lombrozo, 2010;2013).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Edwards, B. J., Williams, J. J., Gentner, D., & Lombrozo, T.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Edwards, Brian J.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
185
Pages
21-38
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2911165400
Cited by
34
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
FWCI
5.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
  • NSF SLC (SBE-0541957)
  • ONR (N00014-13-1-0470)
  • NSF (DRL-1056712)
  • McDonnell Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
explanation, category learning, rule induction, group comparison, pairwise comparison, mediation, pattern detection
MeSH terms
Adult, Concept Formation, Humans, Judgment, Learning, Thinking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review