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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnhart WR, Rivera S, Robinson CW (2018) Effects of linguistic labels on visual attention in children and young adults. Front Psychol 9:358
Bassok M, Medin D (1997) Birds of a feather flock together: similarity judgements with semantically rich stimuli. J Mem Lang 36:311–336
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):1196–1206
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):89–90
Booth AE (2014) Conceptually coherent categories support label-based inductive generalization in preschoolers. J Exp Child Psychol 123:1–14
Booth A, Waxman SR (2002) Object names and object functions serve as cues to categories for infants. Dev Psychol 38:948–957
Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(3):201–215
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):178–186
Deng W, Sloutsky VM (2013) The role of linguistic labels in inductive generalization. J Exp Child Psychol 114(3):432–455
Gelman SA, Davidson NS (2013) Conceptual influences on category-based induction. Cognit Psychol 66(3):327–353
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):16–37
Griffin Z, Bock K (2000) What the eyes say about speaking. Psychol Sci 11(4):274–279
Johanson M, Papafragou A (2016) The influence of labels and facts on children’s and adults’ categorization. J Exp Child Psychol 144:130–151
Kotov A, Bangura M (2014) Prior knowledge influence on categorization rule discovery and modification during usage. Psychol J High Sch Econ 11(1):164–173
Landau B, Shipley E (2001) Labeling patterns and object naming. Dev Sci 4:109–118
Lin EL, Murphy GL (1997) Effects of background knowledge on object categorization and part detection. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23(4):1153
Livingston KR, Andrews JK, Harnad S (1998) Categorical perception effects induced by category learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 24:732–753
Lupyan G (2008) From chair to “chair”: a representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 137:348–369
Lupyan G, Rakison D, McClelland J (2007) Language is not just for talking: redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychol Sci 18:1077–1083
Malt BC, Sloman SA, Gennari S, Shi M, Wang Y (1999) Knowing versus naming: similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. J Mem Lang 40:230–262
Markman AB, Ross BH (2003) Category use and category learning. Psychol Bull 129:592–613
Medin DL, Lynch EB, Coley JD, Atran S (1997) Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome? Cognit Psychol 32:49–96
Murphy GL, Medin DL (1985) The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychol Rev 92:289–316
Noles NS, Gelman SA (2012) Effects of categorical labels on similarity judgments: a critical analysis of similarity-based approaches. Dev Psychol 48(3):890–896
Oakes LM, Rakison DH (2003) Early category and concept development. Oxford University Press, New York
Plunkett K, Hu JF, Cohen L (2008) Labels can override perceptual categories in early infancy. Cognition 106:665–681
Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124:372–422
Rehder B, Hoffman AB (2005) Eyetracking and selective attention in category learning. Cognit Psychol 51:1–41
Rehder B, Colner RM, Hoffman AB (2009) Feature inference learning and eyetracking. J Mem Lang 60(3):393–419
Rips LJ (2001) Necessity and natural categories. Psychol Bull 127:827–852
Sloman SA (1998) Categorical inference is not a tree: the myth of inheritance hierarchies. Cognit Psychol 35:1–33
Sloutsky VM, Fisher AV (2004) Induction and categorization in young children: a similarity-based model. J Exp Psychol Gen 133:166–188
Sloutsky VM, Fisher AV (2012) Linguistic labels: conceptual markers or object features? J Exp Child Psychol 111:65–86
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):1478
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 72:1695–1709
Sloutsky VM, Kloos H, Fisher AV (2007) When looks are everything: appearance similarity versus kind information in early induction. Psychol Sci 18(2):179–185
Sloutsky VM, Fisher AV, Kloos H (2015) Conceptual influences on induction: a case for a late onset. Cognit Psychol 82:1–31
Smith LB, Jones SS, Landau B, Gershkoff-Stowe L, Samuelson L (2002) Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychol Sci 13:13–19
Vandierendonck A, Rossel Y (2000) Interaction of knowledge-driven and data-driven processing in category learning. Eur J Cognit Psychol 12(1):37–63
Wattenmaker WD (1999) The influence of prior knowledge in intentional versus incidental concept learning. Mem Cognit 27(4):685–698
Waxman SR, Booth AE (2000) Principles that are invoked in the acquisition of words, but not facts. Cognition 77(2):B33–B43
Wisniewski EJ (1995) Prior knowledge and functionally relevant features in concept learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 21:449–468
Wisniewski FJ, Medin DL (1994) On the interaction of theory and data in concept learning. Cognit Sci 18:221–281
Yamauchi T (2009) Finding abstract commonalities of category members. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 21:155–180
Yamauchi T, Markman AB (2000) Inference using categories. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 26(3):776–795
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. 33
Yu NY, Yamauchi T, Schumacher J (2008) Rediscovering symbols: the role of category labels in similarity judgment. J Cognit Sci 9(2):89–109
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Tianjin Philosophy and Social Science Research Planning Project (TJJX16-021).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handling editor: Lutz Jaencke (University of Zurich).
Reviewers: Emilia Pascal (University Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Romania).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, HM., Yin, GE. The influence of theoretical knowledge on similarity judgment. Cogn Process 21, 23–32 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00931-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00931-0