Abstract
High-similarity concept pairs that elicit many commonalities also elicit many related differences (Gentner & Markman, 1994; A. B. Markman & Gentner, 1993a, 1993b, 1996; A. B. Markman & Wisniewski, 1997). This finding has been used to support the claim that the comparison process is one of structural alignment. However, it is possible that the difference advantage results from some other property of high-similarity pairs, such as a greater number of stored differences. The present experiments demonstrate that the comparison process itself leads to the greater psychological availability of differences. In three experiments, participants listed commonalities for word pairs and then listed differences under a time pressure for these old pairs and new pairs. In Experiment 1, participants listed more differences for old than for new pairs, consistent with the claim that the comparison process facilitates noticing differences. In Experiment 2, we showed that the difference-listing advantage is specific to the comparison process: Mere coprocessing of the pairs (specifically, providing thematic relations) does not facilitate, and in fact appears to inhibit, difference listing. In Experiment 3, pairs with deeper common systems elicited a larger number of specific alignable differences than did pairs with shallow sets of commonalities. Overall, the results support the structural alignment claim that the comparison process promotes the noticing of both commonalities and related differences.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bassok, M., &Medin, D. L. (1997). Birds of a feather flock together: Similarity judgments with semantically rich stimuli.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 331–336.
Bassok, M., Wu, L.-L., &Olseth, K. L. (1995). Judging a book by its cover: Interpretative effects of content on problem solving transfer.Memory & Cognition,23, 354–367.
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. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples.Artificial Intelligence,41, 1–63.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science,7, 155–170.
Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure-mapping: The relational shift.Child Development,59, 47–59.
Gentner, D., &Brem, S. (1998). Is snow really like a shovel? Distinguishing similarity from thematic relatedness.Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 179–184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gentner, D., & Brem, S. (2001).Alchemy in current cognition: Distinguishing similarity from thematic relatedness. Manuscript in preparation.
Gentner, D., &Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor.Psychology of Learning & Motivation,22, 307–358.
Gentner, D., &Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity.Psychological Science,5, 152–158.
Gentner, D., &Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity.American Psychologist,52, 45–56.
Gentner, D., &Rattermann, M. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In S. A. Gelman & J. P. Brynes (Eds.),Perspective on thought and language: Interrelations in development (pp. 225–277). London: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., &Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness.Cognitive Psychology,25, 524–575.
Gentner, D., &Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy.Cognitive Science,10, 277–300.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., & Robertson, R. R. (1995).The role of suppression in metaphor interpretation. Paper presented at the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., &Gentner, D. (1991). Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments.Cognitive Psychology,23, 222–262.
Halford, G. S. (1987). A structure-mapping approach to cognitive development. The neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Toward an interpretation.International Journal of Psychology,22, 609–642.
James, W. (1890).The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.
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., &Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons.Memory & Cognition,24, 235–249.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1997). The effects of alignability on memory storage.Psychological Science,8, 363–367.
Markman, A. B., &Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 54–70.
Markman, E. M., &Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children’s sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations.Cognitive Psychology,16, 1–27.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1990). Similarity involving attributes and relations: Judgments of similarity and differences are not inverses.Psychological Science,1, 64–69.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1993).Respects for similarity. Psychological Review,100, 254–278.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1987). Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 87–108.
Rattermann, M. J., &Gentner, D. (1998). More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: Children’s performance on a causal-mapping task.Cognitive Development,13, 453–478.
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.
Shepard, R. N. (1974). Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects.Psychometrika,39, 373–421.
Shoben, E. J. (1983). Applications of multidimensional scaling in cognitive psychology.Applied Psychological Measurement,7, 473–490.
Sloman, S. A. (1996).The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin,119, 3–22.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Waxman, S. R., &Gelman, R. (1986). Preschoolers’ use of superordinate relations in classification and language.Cognitive Development,1, 139–156.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Bassok, M. (1996). On putting milk in coffee: The effect of thematic relations on similarity judgments. InProceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 464–468). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship awarded to V.G. and by NSF Grant SBR-95-11757 and ONR Grant N00014-92-J-1098 awarded to D.G. This paper was partially prepared while D.G. was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gentner, D., Gunn, V. Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory & Cognition 29, 565–577 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200458
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200458