Fast Similarities: Efficiency Advantages of Similarity-Focused Comparisons

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1280-1286

  Corcoran, Katja ^a   Epstude, Kai ^b   Damisch, Lysann ^a   Mussweiler, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Comparative thinking styles; Comparisons; Efficiency; Judgments; Similarity

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; RECALL; STUDENT; THINKING; UNIVERSITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; STUDENTS; THINKING; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 80052836865     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0023922     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Chapman G.B., Johnson E.J. Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1999, 79:115-153. 10.1006/obhd.1999.2841.
2. Choplin J.M., Hummel J.E. Magnitude comparisons distort mental representations of magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2002, 131:270-286. 10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.270.
3. Corcoran K., Hundhammer T., Mussweiler T. A tool for thought! When comparative thinking reduces stereotyping effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2009, 45:1008-1011. 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.015.
4. Corcoran K., Mussweiler T. Comparative thinking styles in group and person perception: One mechanism-many effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2009, 3:244-259. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00173.x.
5. Corcoran K., Mussweiler T. The cognitive miser's perspective: Social comparison as a heuristic in self-judgements. European Review of Social Psychology 2010, 21:78-113.
6. Corneille O., Yzerbyt V.Y., Pleyers G., Mussweiler T. Beyond awareness and resources: Evaluative conditioning may be sensitive to processing goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2009, 45:279-282. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.020.
7. Damisch L., Mussweiler T., Plessner H. Olympic medals as fruits of comparison? Assimilation and contrast in sequential performance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2006, 12:166-178. 10.1037/1076-898X.12.3.166.
8. Donderi D.C., Zelnicker D. Parallel processing in visual same-different decisions. Perception & Psychophysics 1969, 5:197-200. 10.3758/BF03210537.
9. Dunning D., Hayes A.F. Evidence of egocentric comparison in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, 71:213-229. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.213.
10. Epstude K., Mussweiler T. What you feel is how you compare: How comparisons influence the social induction of affect. Emotion 2009, 9:1-14. 10.1037/a0014148.
11. Förster J. Relations between perceptual and conceptual scope: How global versus local processing fits a focus on similarity versus dissimilarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2009, 138:88-111. 10.1037/a0014484.
12. Gentner D., Markman A.B. Structural mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 1997, 52:45-56. 10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45.
13. Goldstone R.L. Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994, 20:3-28. 10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.3.
14. Golonka S., Estes Z. Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2009, 35:1454-1464. 10.1037/a0017397.
15. Haddock G., Macrae C.N., Fleck S. Syrian science and smart supermodels: On the when and how of perception-behavior effects. Social Cognition 2002, 20:461-479. 10.1521/soco.20.6.461.22976.
16. Häfner M. How dissimilar others may still resemble the self: Assimilation and contrast after social comparison. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2004, 14:187-196. 10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_21.
17. Hummel J.E., Holyoak K.J. Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review 1997, 104:427-466. 10.1037/0033-295X.104.3.427.
18. Lee M.D. Neural feature abstraction from judgments of similarity. Neural Computation 1998, 10:1815-1830. 10.1162/089976698300017151.
19. Macrae C.N., Milne A.B., Bodenhausen G.V. Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994, 66:37-47. 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.37.
20. Markman A.B., Gentner D. Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 1993, 32:517-535. 10.1006/jmla.1993.1027.
21. Markman A.D., Gentner D. Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition 1996, 24:235-249. 10.3758/BF03200884.
22. Medin D.L., Goldstone R.L., Gentner D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review 1993, 100:254-278. 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.254.
23. Mussweiler T. " Seek and ye shall find": Antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology 2001, 31:499-509. 10.1002/ejsp.75.
24. Mussweiler T. Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review 2003, 110:472-489. 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472.
25. Mussweiler T., Damisch L. Going back to Donald: How comparisons shape judgmental priming effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008, 95:1295-1315. 10.1037/a0013261.
26. Mussweiler T., Epstude K. Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2009, 138:1-21. 10.1037/a0014374.
27. Mussweiler T., Rüter K. What friends are for! The use of routine standards in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003, 85:467-481. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.467.
28. Mussweiler T., Rüter K., Epstude K. The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2004, 87:832-844. 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.832.
29. Navarro D.J., Lee M.D. Common and distinctive features in stimulus similarity: A modified version of the contrast model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:961-974. 10.3758/BF03196728.
30. Restle F. A metric and an ordering on sets. Psychometrika 1959, 24:207-220. 10.1007/BF02289843.
31. Ritov I., Gati I., Tversky A. Differential weighting of common and distinctive components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1990, 119:30-41. 10.1037/0096-3445.119.1.30.
32. Shepard R.N., Arabie P. Additive clustering: Representations of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. Psychological Review 1979, 86:87-123. 10.1037/0033-295X.86.2.87.
33. Taylor S.E. The interface of cognitive and social psychology. Cognition, social behavior, and the environment 1981, 182-211. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. J. Harvey (Ed.).
34. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 1977, 84:327-352. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327.
35. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, September 27, 185:1124-1131. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
36. Wisniewski E.J. Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 1996, 35:434-453. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0024.
37. Wisniewski E.J., Bassok M. What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology 1999, 39:208-238. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0723.
38. Wisniewski E.J., Middleton E.L. Of bucket bowls and coffee cup bowls: Spatial alignment in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 2002, 46:1-23. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2801.
39. Young M.E., Wasserman E.A. Detecting variety: What's so special about uniformity?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2002, 131:131-143. 10.1037/0096-3445.131.1.131.