Location of Repository

Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities

By Sabrina Golonka and Zachary Estes

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

Topics: BF
Publisher: American Psychological Association
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:666

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2003). A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. doi
  2. (1964). Acoustic confusion in immediate memory. doi
  3. (2008). An asymmetric effect of relational integration on recognition memory. doi
  4. (1980). Analogical problem solving. doi
  5. (2003). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination. doi
  6. (2007). Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. doi
  7. (1997). Birds of a feather flock together: Similarity judgments with semantically rich stimuli. doi
  8. (2001). Causes of taxonomic sorting by adults: A test of the thematic-totaxonomic shift. doi
  9. (1997). Challenging the notion of thematic preference in young children. doi
  10. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. doi
  11. (1975). Context dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. doi
  12. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. doi
  13. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. doi
  14. (1977). Features of similarity. doi
  15. (2008). Individual differences in similarity and difference. doi
  16. (2009). Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing. doi
  17. (1999). Is snow really similar to a shovel? Distinguishing similarity from thematic relatedness.
  18. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. doi
  19. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In
  20. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. doi
  21. (2004). Preserved thematic and impaired taxonomic categorization: A case study. doi
  22. (2006). Priming via relational similarity: A COPPER HORSE is faster when seen through a GLASS EYE. doi
  23. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. doi
  24. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. doi
  25. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. doi
  26. (1990). Similarity involving attributes and relations: Judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses. doi
  27. (1993). Splitting the difference: A structural alignment view of similarity. doi
  28. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. doi
  29. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. doi
  30. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. doi
  31. (2000). Structure mapping in the comparison process. doi
  32. (2004). The importance of being nonalignable: A critical test of the structural alignment theory of similarity. doi
  33. (1982). The need for cognition. doi
  34. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. doi
  35. (1984). Weighting common and distinctive features in conceptual and perceptual judgments. doi
  36. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. doi
  37. (1997). When concepts combine. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.