Literature DB >> 8881326

Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons.

A B Markman1, D Gentner.   

Abstract

Similarity is a central component of many cognitive processes. Current research suggests that similarity is well characterized as a comparison of structured representations. This process yields commonalities, differences related to the commonalities (alignable differences), and differences not related to the commonalities (nonalignable differences). In the first study, further evidence for this tripartite distinction is provided in a commonality and difference listing study involving pairs of pictures. This study indicates that alignable differences rather than nonalignable differences are central to the comparison process by virtue of their connection to the commonalities. The second study further demonstrates that alignable differences count more against the similarity of a pair than do nonalignable differences. We end by discussing implications of the distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences for other cognitive processes involving comparisons.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8881326     DOI: 10.3758/bf03200884

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  5 in total

1.  Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments.

Authors:  R L Goldstone; D L Medin; D Gentner
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did.

Authors:  R R Hunt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1995-03

3.  Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer.

Authors:  K J Holyoak; K Koh
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1987-07

4.  Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise.

Authors:  L R Novick
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Constraints on representational change: evidence from children's drawing.

Authors:  A Karmiloff-Smith
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1990-01
  5 in total
  14 in total

1.  Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences.

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

2.  Making features similar: comparison processes affect perception.

Authors:  R R Hassin
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-12

3.  Alignable and nonalignable differences in causal explanations.

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

4.  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

5.  Structural alignment in similarity and difference judgments.

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

6.  Generating explanations via analogical comparison.

Authors:  Christian Hoyos; Dedre Gentner
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-10

7.  Finding faults: analogical comparison supports spatial concept learning in geoscience.

Authors:  Benjamin D Jee; David H Uttal; Dedre Gentner; Cathy Manduca; Thomas F Shipley; Bradley Sageman
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2013-02-24

8.  Effects of language and similarity on comparison processing.

Authors:  Susan A Gelman; Lakshmi Raman; Dedre Gentner
Journal:  Lang Learn Dev       Date:  2009

9.  Visual effects in picture and word categorization.

Authors:  L Lotto; R Job; R Rumiati
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1999-07

10.  Redescription disembeds relations: evidence from relational transfer and use in problem solving.

Authors:  James A Dixon; Matthew C Dohn
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.