Table 3.
Category‐level typicality ratings (1‐6) from Pilot Study 5 show similarities across Label types for Typical vs. Atypical exemplar pictures for the ten categories used in study 3
| Morphological | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical | Atypical | |||
| PAPER | writing paper | 5.13 | toilet paper | 4.87 |
| PHONE | cell phone | 5.76 | rotary phone | 3.68 |
| BALL | basketball | 5.55 | football | 4.48 |
| BOOK | textbook | 5.13 | notebook | 3.48 |
| CHAIR | folding chair | 5.48 | rocking chair | 3.24 |
| Nontransparent | ||||
| Typical | Atypical | |||
| SHOES | loafers | 5.30 | slippers | 3.15 |
| PANTS | trousers | 5.85 | overalls | 4.19 |
| VEHICLE | car | 5.96 | train | 3.59 |
| WRITING INSTRUMENT | pencil | 5.81 | chalk | 4.33 |
| VEGETABLE | celery | 5.59 | eggplant | 4.96 |
Typical items (Morphological, M = 5.45, SD = 0.07; Nontransparent, M = 5.67, SD = 0.09), Atypical items (Morphological, M = 3.67, SD = 0.15; Nontransparent, M = 4.03, SD = 0.18). A Typicality (Typical vs. Atypical) by Label type (Morphological vs. Nontransparent) ANOVA revealed only a main effect of Typicality, F (1, 4) = 35.60, P = 0.004. No significant main effect of Label type or interactions between Typicality and Label type were found.