Advertisement

The influence of theoretical knowledge on similarity judgment

  • Hong-Mei SunEmail author
  • Guo-En Yin
Research Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

The similarity of the features between two entities has been assumed to be the essential factor for distinguishing these two entities across a variety of cognitive acts; however, the mechanism underlying the similarity processing remains unclear. The perceptual-based account suggests that similarity judgment is based on perceptual features between entities, whereas other accounts assume that similarity judgment relies heavily on one’s previous knowledge of the entities. In Experiment 1, we explored the influence of theoretical knowledge on similarity judgment when perceptual features conflict with conceptual information. In Experiment 2, we examined whether categorization tasks further influence the results of the similarity judgment. Our results showed that the theoretical knowledge contributed to the overall similarity of the stimuli. In addition, carrying out a categorization task or not did not contribute more to the processes of the similarity judgment. Overall, these findings suggest that the conceptual information is more important than perceptual features while judging the similarity of two entities; if sufficient theoretical knowledge is available, the criteria for carrying out the categorization task might be consistent with those for the similarity judgment in the present study.

Keywords

Similarity judgment Theoretical knowledge Categorization Eye movements 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Tianjin Philosophy and Social Science Research Planning Project (TJJX16-021).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors have no potential competing interest concerning the submission of this manuscript “The influence of theoretical knowledge on similarity judgment” to the journal “Cognitive Processing.”

Ethical approval

The experiments in this study were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and had been approved by the ethics committee of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Informed consent

All participants gave written informed consent prior to testing.

References

  1. Barnhart WR, Rivera S, Robinson CW (2018) Effects of linguistic labels on visual attention in children and young adults. Front Psychol 9:358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassok M, Medin D (1997) Birds of a feather flock together: similarity judgements with semantically rich stimuli. J Mem Lang 36:311–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair M, Watson MR, Walshe RC, Maj F (2009) Extremely selective attention: eye-tracking studies of the dynamic allocation of attention to stimulus features in categorization. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 35(5):1196–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom P, Markson L (2001) Are there principles that apply only to the acquisition of words? A reply to Waxman and Booth. Cognition 78(1):89–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth AE (2014) Conceptually coherent categories support label-based inductive generalization in preschoolers. J Exp Child Psychol 123:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth A, Waxman SR (2002) Object names and object functions serve as cues to categories for infants. Dev Psychol 38:948–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(3):201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deng W, Sloutsky VM (2012) Carrot-eaters and moving heads: salient features provide greater support for inductive inference than category labels. Psychol Sci 23(2):178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng W, Sloutsky VM (2013) The role of linguistic labels in inductive generalization. J Exp Child Psychol 114(3):432–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelman SA, Davidson NS (2013) Conceptual influences on category-based induction. Cognit Psychol 66(3):327–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham SA, Welder AN, McCrimmon AW (2003) Hot dogs and Zavy cats: preschoolers’ and adults’ expectations about familiar and novel adjectives. Brain Lang 84(1):16–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffin Z, Bock K (2000) What the eyes say about speaking. Psychol Sci 11(4):274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johanson M, Papafragou A (2016) The influence of labels and facts on children’s and adults’ categorization. J Exp Child Psychol 144:130–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kotov A, Bangura M (2014) Prior knowledge influence on categorization rule discovery and modification during usage. Psychol J High Sch Econ 11(1):164–173Google Scholar
  15. Landau B, Shipley E (2001) Labeling patterns and object naming. Dev Sci 4:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin EL, Murphy GL (1997) Effects of background knowledge on object categorization and part detection. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23(4):1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Livingston KR, Andrews JK, Harnad S (1998) Categorical perception effects induced by category learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 24:732–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lupyan G (2008) From chair to “chair”: a representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 137:348–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lupyan G, Rakison D, McClelland J (2007) Language is not just for talking: redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychol Sci 18:1077–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Malt BC, Sloman SA, Gennari S, Shi M, Wang Y (1999) Knowing versus naming: similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. J Mem Lang 40:230–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Markman AB, Ross BH (2003) Category use and category learning. Psychol Bull 129:592–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Medin DL, Lynch EB, Coley JD, Atran S (1997) Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome? Cognit Psychol 32:49–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy GL, Medin DL (1985) The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychol Rev 92:289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Noles NS, Gelman SA (2012) Effects of categorical labels on similarity judgments: a critical analysis of similarity-based approaches. Dev Psychol 48(3):890–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oakes LM, Rakison DH (2003) Early category and concept development. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Plunkett K, Hu JF, Cohen L (2008) Labels can override perceptual categories in early infancy. Cognition 106:665–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124:372–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rehder B, Hoffman AB (2005) Eyetracking and selective attention in category learning. Cognit Psychol 51:1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rehder B, Colner RM, Hoffman AB (2009) Feature inference learning and eyetracking. J Mem Lang 60(3):393–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rips LJ (2001) Necessity and natural categories. Psychol Bull 127:827–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sloman SA (1998) Categorical inference is not a tree: the myth of inheritance hierarchies. Cognit Psychol 35:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sloutsky VM, Fisher AV (2004) Induction and categorization in young children: a similarity-based model. J Exp Psychol Gen 133:166–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sloutsky VM, Fisher AV (2012) Linguistic labels: conceptual markers or object features? J Exp Child Psychol 111:65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sloutsky VM, Lo YF (1999) How much does a shared name make things similar? Part 1. Linguistic labels and the development of similarity judgment. Dev Psychol 35(6):1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sloutsky VM, Lo YF, Fisher A (2001) How much does a shared name make things similar? Linguistic labels and the development of inductive inference. Child Dev 72:1695–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sloutsky VM, Kloos H, Fisher AV (2007) When looks are everything: appearance similarity versus kind information in early induction. Psychol Sci 18(2):179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sloutsky VM, Fisher AV, Kloos H (2015) Conceptual influences on induction: a case for a late onset. Cognit Psychol 82:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith LB, Jones SS, Landau B, Gershkoff-Stowe L, Samuelson L (2002) Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychol Sci 13:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vandierendonck A, Rossel Y (2000) Interaction of knowledge-driven and data-driven processing in category learning. Eur J Cognit Psychol 12(1):37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wattenmaker WD (1999) The influence of prior knowledge in intentional versus incidental concept learning. Mem Cognit 27(4):685–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waxman SR, Booth AE (2000) Principles that are invoked in the acquisition of words, but not facts. Cognition 77(2):B33–B43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wisniewski EJ (1995) Prior knowledge and functionally relevant features in concept learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 21:449–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wisniewski FJ, Medin DL (1994) On the interaction of theory and data in concept learning. Cognit Sci 18:221–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yamauchi T (2009) Finding abstract commonalities of category members. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 21:155–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yamauchi T, Markman AB (2000) Inference using categories. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 26(3):776–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yu NY, Yamauchi T (2011) Are category labels features or naïve assumption? In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, vol 33, No. 33Google Scholar
  47. Yu NY, Yamauchi T, Schumacher J (2008) Rediscovering symbols: the role of category labels in similarity judgment. J Cognit Sci 9(2):89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementTianjin University of Traditional Chinese MedicineTianjinChina
  2. 2.Academy of Psychology and BehaviorTianjin Normal UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations