Individual differences in the perception of similarity and difference

Cognition

Volumn 108, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 781-795

  Simmons, Sabrina ^a   Estes, Zachary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Dual process model; Individual differences; Non inversion; Perceived difference; Perceived similarity; Thematic relations

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INDIVIDUALITY; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; THEMATIC ANALYSIS;

COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; JUDGMENT; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 51249083218     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Barsalou L.W. Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory & Cognition 10 (1982) 82-93
2. Barsalou L.W. Intraconcept similarity and its implications for interconcept similarity. In: Ortony A., and Vosniadou S. (Eds). Similarity and analogical reasoning (1989), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 76-121
3. Bassok M., and Medin D.L. Birds of a feather flock together: Similarity judgments with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language 36 (1997) 311-336
4. Beck J. Effect of orientation and of shape similarity on perceptual grouping. Perception & Psychophysics 1 (1966) 300-302
5. Cacioppo J.T., and Petty R.E. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (1982) 116-131
6. Cacioppo J.T., Petty R.E., and Kao C.F. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48 (1984) 306-307
7. Estes Z. A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. Cognitive Science 27 (2003) 911-921
8. Estes Z., and Hasson U. The importance of being nonalignable: A critical test of the structural alignment theory of similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30 (2004) 1082-1092
9. Gati I., and Tversky A. Weighting common and distinctive features in conceptual and perceptual judgments. Cognitive Psychology 16 (1984) 341-370
10. Gentner D., and Brem S.K. Is snow really similar to a shovel? Distinguishing similarity from thematic relatedness. Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1999), Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ 179-184
11. Gentner D., and Gunn V. Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory & Cognition 29 (2001) 565-577
12. Gentner D., and Markman A.B. Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science 5 (1994) 152-158
13. Gentner D., and Markman A.B. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52 (1997) 45-56
14. Goldstone R.L. The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition 52 (1994) 125-157
15. Hampton J.A., Estes Z., and Simmons S. Metamorphosis: Essence, appearance and behavior in the categorization of natural kinds. Memory & Cognition 35 (2007) 1785-1800
16. Jones M., and Love B. Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology 55 (2007) 196-231
17. Landauer T.K., and Dumais S.T. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104 (2002) 211-240
18. Lassiter G.D., Briggs M.A., and Slaw R.D. Need for cognition, causal processing, and memory for behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 (1991) 694-699
19. Levin I.P., Huneke M.E., and Jasper J.D. Information processing at successive stages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82 (2000) 171-193
20. Lin E.L., and Murphy G.L. Thematic relations in adults' concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130 (2001) 3-28
21. Markman A.B., and Gentner D. Splitting the difference: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 32 (1993) 517-535
22. Markman A.B., and Gentner D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 25 (1993) 431-467
23. Markman E.M., and Hutchinson J.E. Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology 16 (1984) 1-27
24. Medin D.L., Goldstone R.L., and Gentner D. Similarity involving attributes and relations: Judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses. Psychological Science 1 (1990) 64-69
25. Medin D.L., Goldstone R.L., and Gentner D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review 100 (1993) 254-278
26. Murphy G.L. Causes of taxonomic sorting by adults: A test of the thematic-to-taxonomic shift. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8 (2001) 834-839
27. Navarro D., and Lee M. Common and distinctive features in stimulus similarity: A modified version of the contrast model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 (2004) 961-974
28. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Available from: http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation.
29. Simmons, S. & Estes, Z. (submitted for publication). Dual processes of comparison and integration in similarity and difference.
30. Smiley S.S., and Brown A.L. Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 28 (1979) 249-257
31. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84 (1977) 327-352
32. Wisniewski E.J., and Bassok M. What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology 39 (1999) 208-238