從實驗的結果上來看，有三組實驗在這個問題上，有相當不同的發現。
Gentner (1978) 讓受試者接觸兩個新玩意兒：「jiggy」是有卡通圖案的立方體盒子，只要壓一下摃捍，表情就會改變；「zimbo」則是像扭蛋機的東西，壓一下摃捍，就會跑出聰明豆。接著會有一個東西外表像「jiggy」但是壓一下之後，會出聰明豆，如同「zimbo」的第三個新玩意兒。問受試者這第三個新玩意兒叫什麼名字？在2歲到5歲的幼兒身上都認為這是「jiggy」，而5到15歲的小孩則認為是「zimbo」。讓人覺得驚訝的是，成人的反應，他們並不像5到15歲的小孩，反而更像2歲到5歲的幼兒。
Nelson and Students (1995) 則使用t形的刷子作為新玩意兒給受試者看，把它叫「stennet」。「stennet」在沾顏料可以用來設計，成人被告知「stennet」的用法，而小孩子則可以直接操作「stennet」動手作設計。之後，會給受試者看一些東西：和「stennet」相比，有一些東西形狀相同，有一些東西形狀不同，有一些東西功能相同，有一些東西則功能不同。最後，受試者會被問，你覺得某個東西是不是「stennet」？從三歲到五歲的小孩子都認為有相同功能的東西是「stennet」。
Landau,Smith and Jones (1998) 透過類似的設計，把一個叫作「rif」的東西介紹給受試者。成人被告知「Rifs are made by a special company so they can do this.」接著就用「rif」去刮水。然後，同樣給一連串的東西由受試者判斷是不是「rif」。兩歲、三歲和五歲的小孩子認為有相同形狀的就是「rif」；但是成人則會根據功能去決定是否是「rif」。
我們可以確定的是，人們並不是單純因為形狀相似而形成概念，形狀是一個線索(shape-as-cue)。在事物的本質是否能夠使它形成概念？在動物領域的概念是已經被證實的；但是在人造物領域的概念，我們還不太確定。
References
Atran, S. (1998). Folk biology and the anthropology of science: Cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behavioral and brain sciences, 21(4), 547-569.
Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60(1), 1-29.
Bloom, P. (1998). Theories of artifact categorization. Cognition, 66(1), 87-93.
Dennett, D. C. (1990). The interpretation of texts, people and other artifacts. Philosophy and phenomenological research, 50, 177-194.
Gelman, S. A. & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23(3), 183-209.
Gelman, S. A. & Markman, E. M. (1987). Young children’s inductions from natural kinds: The role of categories and appearances. Child development, , 1532-1541.
Gentner, D. (1978). What looks like a jiggy but acts like a zimbo? A study of early word meaning using artificial objects. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 1-6.
Keil, F. C. (1992). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. mit Press.
Landau, B., Smith, L. & Jones, S. (1998). Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of memory and language, 38(1), 1-27.
Locke, J. (1964). An essay concerning human understanding (Vol. 1690). London.
Malt, B. C. & Johnson, E. C. (1998). Artifact category membership and the intentional-historical theory. Cognition, 66(1), 79-85.
Murphy, G. L. & Lassaline, M. E. (1997). Hierarchical structure in concepts and the basic level of categorization. In (), Knowledge, concepts, and categories. MIT Press.
Murphy, G. L. & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence.. Psychological review, 92(3), 289.
Nelson, D. G. K. & Students, S. C. (1995). Principle-based inferences in young children’s categorization: Revisiting the impact of function on the naming of artifacts. Cognitive development, 10(3), 347-380.
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of” meaning”. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive psychology, 7(4), 573-605.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 8(3), 382-439.
Wisniewski, E. J. & Medin, D. L. (1994). On the interaction of theory and data in concept learning. Cognitive Science, 18(2), 221-281.
