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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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.”
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.
All participants gave written informed consent prior to testing.
Barnhart WR, Rivera S, Robinson CW (2018) Effects of linguistic labels on visual attention in children and young adults. Front Psychol 9:358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassok M, Medin D (1997) Birds of a feather flock together: similarity judgements with semantically rich stimuli. J Mem Lang 36:311–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Booth AE (2014) Conceptually coherent categories support label-based inductive generalization in preschoolers. J Exp Child Psychol 123:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth A, Waxman SR (2002) Object names and object functions serve as cues to categories for infants. Dev Psychol 38:948–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(3):201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Deng W, Sloutsky VM (2013) The role of linguistic labels in inductive generalization. J Exp Child Psychol 114(3):432–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman SA, Davidson NS (2013) Conceptual influences on category-based induction. Cognit Psychol 66(3):327–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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