The Library

Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities

Tools

Golonka, Sabrina and Estes, Zachary. (2009) Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol.35 (No.6). pp. 1454-1464. ISSN 0278-7393

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Estes_Thematic_relations.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (204Kb)

Official URL: http://www.apa.org/journals/xlm/

Abstract

Thematic relations are an important source of perceived similarity. For instance, the rowing theme of boats and oars increases their perceived similarity. The mechanism of this effect, however, has not been specified previously. We investigated whether thematic relations affect similarity by increasing commonalities or by decreasing differences. In Experiment 1, thematic relations affected similarity more than difference, thereby producing a non-inversion of similarity and difference. Experiment 2 revealed substantial individual variability in the preference for thematic relations and, consequently in the non-inversion of ratings. In sum, the experiments demonstrated a non-inversion of similarity and difference that was caused by thematic relations and exhibited primarily by a subgroup of participants. These results indicate that thematic relations affect perceived similarity by increasing the contribution of commonalities rather than by decreasing the contribution of differences.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology

Divisions:

Faculty of Science > Psychology

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Similarity (Psychology), Categorization (Psychology), Paired-association learning

Journal or Publication Title:

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Publisher:

American Psychological Association

ISSN:

0278-7393

Official Date:

November 2009

Dates:

Date	Event
November 2009	Published

Volume:

Vol.35

Number:

No.6

Page Range:

pp. 1454-1464

Identification Number:

10.1037/a0017397

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

References:

Bassok, M., & Medin, D. L. (1997). Birds of a feather flock together: Similarity judgments with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 311–336. Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. F. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–210. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Conrad, R. (1964). Acoustic confusion in immediate memory. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 149-154.
Davidoff, J. & Roberson, D. (2004). Preserved thematic and impaired taxonomic categorization: A case study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 137-174.
Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17-22.
Estes, Z. (2003a). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 304-319.
Estes. Z. (2003b). A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. Cognitive Science 27, 911–921.
Estes, Z. & Hasson, U. (2004). The importance of being nonalignable: A critical test of the structural alignment theory of similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1082-1092.
Estes, Z., & Jones, L. L. (2006). Priming via relational similarity: A COPPER HORSE is faster when seen through a GLASS EYE. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 89-101.
Estes, Z. & Jones, L. L. (2009). Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 112-130.
Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. (1997). The influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 71-87.
Gati, I. & Tversky, A. (1984). Weighting common and distinctive features in conceptual and perceptual judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 341-370.
Gentner, D. & Brem, S. K. (1999). Is snow really similar to a shovel? Distinguishing similarity from thematic relatedness. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Gentner, D. & Gunn, V. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition, 9, 565-577.
Gentner, D. & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152-158.
Gentner, D. & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.
Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
Godden, D. R. & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-331.
Jones, L. L., Estes, Z., & Marsh, R. L. (2008). An asymmetric effect of relational integration on recognition memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1169-1176.
Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2007). Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 196-231.
Lin, E. L. & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 3-28.
Markman, A. B. (1996). Structural alignment in similarity and difference judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 227-230.
Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the difference: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517-535.
Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 24, 235-249.
Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (2000). Structure mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology, 118, 501-538.
Markman, A. B. & Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 54-70.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1990). Similarity involving attributes and relations: Judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses. Psychological Science, 1, 64-69.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M., (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238. Meyer, D. E. & Schvanenveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234.
Murphy, G. L. (2001). Causes of taxonomic sorting by adults: A test of the thematic-to- taxonomic shift. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 8, 834-839.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144). New York: Academic Press.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simmons, S. & Estes, Z. (2008). Individual differences in similarity and difference. Cognition, 108, 781-795.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Waxman, S. R. & Namy, L. L. (1997). Challenging the notion of thematic preference in young children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 555-567. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 167-183.
Wisniewski, E. J. & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 208-238.