Loading…
Structural Alignment in Induction and Similarity
According to a structural alignment view, representational commonalities contribute to the perception of similarity, whereas nonshared attributes related to commonalities are candidate inferences in induction. This view was tested in 5 experiments. Novel animal pairs varying in the number of attribu...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition memory, and cognition, 1996-05, Vol.22 (3), p.754-770 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | 770 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 754 |
| container_title | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition |
| container_volume | 22 |
| creator | Lassaline, Mary E |
| description | According to a
structural alignment
view, representational commonalities contribute to the perception of similarity, whereas nonshared attributes related to commonalities are candidate inferences in induction. This view was tested in 5 experiments. Novel animal pairs varying in the number of attributes and relations they shared were used to assess the relationship between induction and similarity. In Experiments 1 and 2, the number of shared attributes and the presence of 2 kinds of causal relations between attributes varied. Shared attributes increased both similarity and inductive strength judgments.
Shared causal relations,
possessed by both animals, influenced perceived similarity, but
binding causal relations,
which connected a shared attribute to a candidate inference in the induction task, were important for inductive strength. In Experiments 3-5, these results were extended through use of a noncausal relation and familiar animal categories. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.754 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78055467</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>78055467</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a360t-713aa4d2e88a3faebdfc50a96b2e1e545fa1d7901c51feb6a5432ce4785713af3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV1LwzAUhoMoc07_gCAUFe9a89E0yeUYfgwGXkyvw2mbSkY_ZtKC-_embCgIem4C5zzve8J5EbokOCGYiXtMhYwFUyyhNGGJ4OkRmhLFVEyo5Mdo-g2cojPvN3gsJidoIjOeEc6nCK97NxT94KCO5rV9bxvT9pFto2Vbhr7t2gjaMlrbxtbgbL87RycV1N5cHN4Zent8eF08x6uXp-VivoqBZbiPBWEAaUmNlMAqMHlZFRyDynJqiOEpr4CUQmFScFKZPAOeMlqYVEg-Sis2Q3d7363rPgbje91YX5i6htZ0g9dCYs7TTATw-he46QbXhr_pjKSMS6XIfxANUFiJZYBu_oKIZEqKDAd2huieKlznvTOV3jrbgNtpgvUYix6vrsera0o10yGWILo6WA95Y8pvySGHML_dz2ELeut3BbjeFrXx-rNufmy-APxPkec</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614358991</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Structural Alignment in Induction and Similarity</title><source>PsycARTICLES (APA)</source><creator>Lassaline, Mary E</creator><creatorcontrib>Lassaline, Mary E</creatorcontrib><description>According to a
structural alignment
view, representational commonalities contribute to the perception of similarity, whereas nonshared attributes related to commonalities are candidate inferences in induction. This view was tested in 5 experiments. Novel animal pairs varying in the number of attributes and relations they shared were used to assess the relationship between induction and similarity. In Experiments 1 and 2, the number of shared attributes and the presence of 2 kinds of causal relations between attributes varied. Shared attributes increased both similarity and inductive strength judgments.
Shared causal relations,
possessed by both animals, influenced perceived similarity, but
binding causal relations,
which connected a shared attribute to a candidate inference in the induction task, were important for inductive strength. In Experiments 3-5, these results were extended through use of a noncausal relation and familiar animal categories.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-7393</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.754</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8656155</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Association Learning ; Attention ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive Discrimination ; Discrimination Learning ; Female ; Human ; Humans ; Inductive Deductive Reasoning ; Inference ; Male ; Probability Learning ; Problem Solving ; Psychology ; Stimulus Similarity</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 1996-05, Vol.22 (3), p.754-770</ispartof><rights>1996 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association May 1996</rights><rights>1996, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8656155$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lassaline, Mary E</creatorcontrib><title>Structural Alignment in Induction and Similarity</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</title><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><description>According to a
structural alignment
view, representational commonalities contribute to the perception of similarity, whereas nonshared attributes related to commonalities are candidate inferences in induction. This view was tested in 5 experiments. Novel animal pairs varying in the number of attributes and relations they shared were used to assess the relationship between induction and similarity. In Experiments 1 and 2, the number of shared attributes and the presence of 2 kinds of causal relations between attributes varied. Shared attributes increased both similarity and inductive strength judgments.
Shared causal relations,
possessed by both animals, influenced perceived similarity, but
binding causal relations,
which connected a shared attribute to a candidate inference in the induction task, were important for inductive strength. In Experiments 3-5, these results were extended through use of a noncausal relation and familiar animal categories.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Association Learning</subject><subject>Attention</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive Discrimination</subject><subject>Discrimination Learning</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inductive Deductive Reasoning</subject><subject>Inference</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Probability Learning</subject><subject>Problem Solving</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Stimulus Similarity</subject><issn>0278-7393</issn><issn>1939-1285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kV1LwzAUhoMoc07_gCAUFe9a89E0yeUYfgwGXkyvw2mbSkY_ZtKC-_embCgIem4C5zzve8J5EbokOCGYiXtMhYwFUyyhNGGJ4OkRmhLFVEyo5Mdo-g2cojPvN3gsJidoIjOeEc6nCK97NxT94KCO5rV9bxvT9pFto2Vbhr7t2gjaMlrbxtbgbL87RycV1N5cHN4Zent8eF08x6uXp-VivoqBZbiPBWEAaUmNlMAqMHlZFRyDynJqiOEpr4CUQmFScFKZPAOeMlqYVEg-Sis2Q3d7363rPgbje91YX5i6htZ0g9dCYs7TTATw-he46QbXhr_pjKSMS6XIfxANUFiJZYBu_oKIZEqKDAd2huieKlznvTOV3jrbgNtpgvUYix6vrsera0o10yGWILo6WA95Y8pvySGHML_dz2ELeut3BbjeFrXx-rNufmy-APxPkec</recordid><startdate>19960501</startdate><enddate>19960501</enddate><creator>Lassaline, Mary E</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7WH</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960501</creationdate><title>Structural Alignment in Induction and Similarity</title><author>Lassaline, Mary E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a360t-713aa4d2e88a3faebdfc50a96b2e1e545fa1d7901c51feb6a5432ce4785713af3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Association Learning</topic><topic>Attention</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive Discrimination</topic><topic>Discrimination Learning</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inductive Deductive Reasoning</topic><topic>Inference</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Probability Learning</topic><topic>Problem Solving</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Stimulus Similarity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lassaline, Mary E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 50</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>PsycArticles (via ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lassaline, Mary E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Structural Alignment in Induction and Similarity</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><date>1996-05-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>754</spage><epage>770</epage><pages>754-770</pages><issn>0278-7393</issn><eissn>1939-1285</eissn><abstract>According to a
structural alignment
view, representational commonalities contribute to the perception of similarity, whereas nonshared attributes related to commonalities are candidate inferences in induction. This view was tested in 5 experiments. Novel animal pairs varying in the number of attributes and relations they shared were used to assess the relationship between induction and similarity. In Experiments 1 and 2, the number of shared attributes and the presence of 2 kinds of causal relations between attributes varied. Shared attributes increased both similarity and inductive strength judgments.
Shared causal relations,
possessed by both animals, influenced perceived similarity, but
binding causal relations,
which connected a shared attribute to a candidate inference in the induction task, were important for inductive strength. In Experiments 3-5, these results were extended through use of a noncausal relation and familiar animal categories.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>8656155</pmid><doi>10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.754</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0278-7393 |
| ispartof | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 1996-05, Vol.22 (3), p.754-770 |
| issn | 0278-7393 1939-1285 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78055467 |
| source | PsycARTICLES (APA) |
| subjects | Adult Association Learning Attention Cognition & reasoning Cognitive Discrimination Discrimination Learning Female Human Humans Inductive Deductive Reasoning Inference Male Probability Learning Problem Solving Psychology Stimulus Similarity |
| title | Structural Alignment in Induction and Similarity |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T13%3A21%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Structural%20Alignment%20in%20Induction%20and%20Similarity&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20Learning,%20memory,%20and%20cognition&rft.au=Lassaline,%20Mary%20E&rft.date=1996-05-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=754&rft.epage=770&rft.pages=754-770&rft.issn=0278-7393&rft.eissn=1939-1285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.754&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78055467%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a360t-713aa4d2e88a3faebdfc50a96b2e1e545fa1d7901c51feb6a5432ce4785713af3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614358991&rft_id=info:pmid/8656155&rfr_iscdi=true |