Literature DB >> 2055001

Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments.

R L Goldstone1, D L Medin, D Gentner.   

Abstract

Four experiments examined the hypothesis that simple attributional features and relational features operate differently in the determination of similarity judgments. Forced choice similarity judgments ("Is X or Y more similar to Z?") and similarity rating tasks demonstrate that making the same featural change in two geometric stimuli unequally affects their judged similarity to a third stimulus (the comparison stimulus). More specifically, a featural change that causes stimuli to be more superficially similar and less relationally similar increases judged similarity if it occurs in stimuli that already share many superficial attributes, and decreases similarity if it occurs in stimuli that do not share as many superficial attributes. These results argue against an assumption of feature independence which asserts that the degree to which a feature shared by two objects affects similarity is independent of the other features shared by the objects. The MAX hypothesis is introduced, in which attributional and relational similarities are separately pooled, and shared features affect similarity more if the pool they are in is already relatively large. The results support claims that relations and attributes are psychologically distinct and that formal measures of similarity should not treat all types of matching features equally.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2055001     DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90010-l

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  25 in total

1.  The role of working memory in analogical mapping.

Authors:  J A Waltz; A Lau; S K Grewal; K J Holyoak
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-10

2.  Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences.

Authors:  D Gentner; V Gunn
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-06

3.  Connecting instances to promote children's relational reasoning.

Authors:  Ji Y Son; Linda B Smith; Robert L Goldstone
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2011-02

4.  Alignable and nonalignable differences in causal explanations.

Authors:  Ann L McGill
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-04

5.  Beyond common features: the role of roles in determining similarity.

Authors:  Matt Jones; Bradley C Love
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2006-11-13       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Structural alignment in similarity and difference judgments.

Authors:  A B Markman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1996-06

7.  Comparison and choice: Relations between similarity processes and decision processes.

Authors:  D L Medin; R L Goldstone; A B Markman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1995-03

8.  Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons.

Authors:  A B Markman; D Gentner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1996-03

9.  Similarity in context.

Authors:  R L Goldstone; D L Medin; J Halberstadt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1997-03

Review 10.  Using multidimensional scaling to quantify similarity in visual search and beyond.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Hayward J Godwin; Gemma Fitzsimmons; Arryn Robbins; Tamaryn Menneer; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.