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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 522–533.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (1996).Informativity and asymmetry. Manuscript in preparation.
Clement, C. A., &Gentner, D. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping.Cognitive Science,15, 89–132.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., &Gentner, D. (1986). The structure-mapping engine. InProceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 272–277). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., &Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples.Artificial Intelligence,41(1), 1–63.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science,7, 155–170.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., &Bowdle, B. F. (1994). The coherence imbalance hypothesis: A functional approach to asymmetry in comparison. InThe Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 351–356). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gentner, D., &Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity.Psychological Science,5, 152–158.
Gentner, D., &Markman, A. B. (1995). Similarity is like analogy. In C. Cacciari (Ed.),Similarity (pp. 111–148). Brussels: BROPEL.
Gentner, D., &Schumacher, R. M. (1986). Use of structure mapping theory for complex systems. InProceedings of the 1986 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 252–258). New York: IEEE.
Gentner, D., &Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy.Cognitive Science,10, 277–300.
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). Similarity, interactive-activation and mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 3–28.
Goldstone, R. L., &Medin, D. L. (1994a). Similarity, interactive-activation and mapping. In K. J. Holyoak & J. A. Barnden (Eds.),Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory: Vol. 2. Analogical connections (pp. 321–362). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Goldstone, R. L., &Medin, D. L. (1994b). The time course of comparison.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 29–50.
Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., &Gentner, D. (1991). Relational similarity and the non-independence of features in similarity judgments.Cognitive Psychology,23, 222–264.
Halford, G. S. (1993).Children’s understanding: The development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hofstadter, D. R., &Mitchell, M. (1994). An overview of the Copycat project. In K. J. Holyoak & J. A. Barnden (Eds.),Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory: Vol. 2. Analogical connections (pp. 31–112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Holyoak, K. J., &Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer.Memory & Cognition,15, 332–340.
Holyoak, K. J., &Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction.Cognitive Science,13, 295–355.
Hunt, R. R. (1995). The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 105–112.
Hunt, R. R., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 421–445.
Johnson, M. D. (1988). Comparability and hierarchical processing in multialternative choice.Journal of Consumer Research,15, 303–314.
Johnson, M. D. (1989). The differential processing of product category and noncomparable choice alternatives.Journal of Consumer Research,16, 300–309.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1990). Constraints on representational change: Evidence from children’s drawing.Cognition,34, 57–83.
Keane, M. T. (1988). Analogical mechanisms.Artificial Intelligence Review,2, 19–23.
Keane, M. T., &Brayshaw, M. (1988). The incremental analogy machine: A computational model of analogy. In D. Sleeman (Ed.),Third European working session on machine learning (pp. 53–62). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kolodner, J. L. (1993).Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density.Psychological Review,85, 445–463.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993a). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 517–535.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,25, 431–467.
Markman, A. B., &Medin, D. L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,63, 117–130.
Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1996).Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Manuscript in preparation.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity.Psychological Review,100, 254–278.
Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science,12, 529–562.
Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 510–520.
Novick, L. R. (1990). Representational transfer in problem solving.Psychological Science,1, 128–132.
Rattermann, M. J., Gentner, D., &DeLoache, J. S. (1990). The effects of familiar labels on young children’s performance in an analogical mapping task. InThe Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 22–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ross, B. H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier examples.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 456–468.
Sjöberg, L. (1972). A cognitive theory of similarity.Göteborg Psychological Reports,2 (10).
Smith, E. E., &Medin, D. L. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, E. E., &Osherson, D. N. (1989). Similarity and decision making. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 60–75). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spellman, B. A., &Holyoak, K. J. (1993). An inhibitory mechanism for goal-directed analogical mapping. InProceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 947–952). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice.Psychological Review,79, 281–299.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation.Cognitive Psychology,27, 1–40.
Ward, T. B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas? In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.),The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wisniewski, E. J. (in press). Similarity, slot-filling and property-mapping in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Eds.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 241–284). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Markman, A. B. (1993). The role of structural alignment in conceptual combination. InProceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1083–1086). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Order of authorship was determined by chance. This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS-909-6259, awarded to D.G. and Doug Medin, and by Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-89-J1272, awarded to D.G. and Ken Forbus.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Markman, A.B., Gentner, D. Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Mem Cogn 24, 235–249 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200884
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200884