{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/21275"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/21275","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Finding the commonalities: The role of analogical mapping during similarity judgments","abstract":"Similarity plays a central role in cognitive theories. Much research has been devoted to understanding what makes a pair of objects similar. This research has demonstrated that the similarity of a pair increases with its commonalities and decreases with its differences. These common and distinctive elements can take the form of parts of objects, relations between parts or properties of whole objects. However, previous work has been unable to reconcile this variety of information within a single framework. We suggest that structural alignment, like that proposed to mediate analogical reasoning, provides a sufficiently powerful process for determining the commonalities and differences of complex representations. In order to make this suggestion more concrete, we present two simulations of the similarity comparison process using the Structure Mapping Engine (Falkenhainer, Forbus and Gentner, 1989), a computer implementation of Gentner's (1983) structure-mapping theory of analogy. The simulations indicate that salient object commonalities yield a preference for mappings based on object similarities, while salient relational commonalities yield a preference for mappings based on relational similarities. We test these predictions in five experiments using the one-shot mapping technique which places local and global similarities in opposition. The results support the general conjecture that similarity comparisons involve structural alignment, as well as the more detailed predictions derived from the simulations. These results pose a difficulty for models using representations that do not encode the binding between relations and their arguments.","abstract_html":"Similarity plays a central role in cognitive theories. Much research has been devoted to understanding what makes a pair of objects similar. This research has demonstrated that the similarity of a pair increases with its commonalities and decreases with its differences. These common and distinctive elements can take the form of parts of objects, relations between parts or properties of whole objects. However, previous work has been unable to reconcile this variety of information within a single framework. We suggest that structural alignment, like that proposed to mediate analogical reasoning, provides a sufficiently powerful process for determining the commonalities and differences of complex representations. In order to make this suggestion more concrete, we present two simulations of the similarity comparison process using the Structure Mapping Engine (Falkenhainer, Forbus and Gentner, 1989), a computer implementation of Gentner's (1983) structure-mapping theory of analogy. The simulations indicate that salient object commonalities yield a preference for mappings based on object similarities, while salient relational commonalities yield a preference for mappings based on relational similarities. We test these predictions in five experiments using the one-shot mapping technique which places local and global similarities in opposition. The results support the general conjecture that similarity comparisons involve structural alignment, as well as the more detailed predictions derived from the simulations. These results pose a difficulty for models using representations that do not encode the binding between relations and their arguments.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Markman, Arthur Brian"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Gentner, Dedre"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-05-07T13:03:54Z","date_published":"2011-05-07T13:03:54Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:17Z","subjects":["Psychology, Experimental"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Copyright 1992 Markman, Arthur Brian"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI9236533","(UMI)AAI9236533"],"render_values":[{"text":"AAI9236533","href":null,"code":true},{"text":"(UMI)AAI9236533","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/21275","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Gentner, Dedre"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Markman, Arthur Brian"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2011-05-07T13:03:54Z","10000-01-01","1992"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Psychology, Experimental"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 1992 Markman, Arthur Brian"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI9236533","(UMI)AAI9236533","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/21275"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Similarity plays a central role in cognitive theories. Much research has been devoted to understanding what makes a pair of objects similar. This research has demonstrated that the similarity of a pair increases with its commonalities and decreases with its differences. These common and distinctive elements can take the form of parts of objects, relations between parts or properties of whole objects. However, previous work has been unable to reconcile this variety of information within a single framework. We suggest that structural alignment, like that proposed to mediate analogical reasoning, provides a sufficiently powerful process for determining the commonalities and differences of complex representations. In order to make this suggestion more concrete, we present two simulations of the similarity comparison process using the Structure Mapping Engine (Falkenhainer, Forbus and Gentner, 1989), a computer implementation of Gentner's (1983) structure-mapping theory of analogy. The simulations indicate that salient object commonalities yield a preference for mappings based on object similarities, while salient relational commonalities yield a preference for mappings based on relational similarities. We test these predictions in five experiments using the one-shot mapping technique which places local and global similarities in opposition. The results support the general conjecture that similarity comparisons involve structural alignment, as well as the more detailed predictions derived from the simulations. These results pose a difficulty for models using representations that do not encode the binding between relations and their arguments.","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T13:03:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9236533.pdf: 6732930 bytes, checksum: 9ade56053b368a9d574050ed8ba8d218 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1992","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:49:40Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:22:37-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Finding the commonalities: The role of analogical mapping during similarity judgments"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Gentner, Dedre"],"dc:creator":["Markman, Arthur Brian"],"dc:date":["2011-05-07T13:03:54Z","10000-01-01","1992"],"dc:description":["Similarity plays a central role in cognitive theories. Much research has been devoted to understanding what makes a pair of objects similar. This research has demonstrated that the similarity of a pair increases with its commonalities and decreases with its differences. These common and distinctive elements can take the form of parts of objects, relations between parts or properties of whole objects. However, previous work has been unable to reconcile this variety of information within a single framework. We suggest that structural alignment, like that proposed to mediate analogical reasoning, provides a sufficiently powerful process for determining the commonalities and differences of complex representations. In order to make this suggestion more concrete, we present two simulations of the similarity comparison process using the Structure Mapping Engine (Falkenhainer, Forbus and Gentner, 1989), a computer implementation of Gentner's (1983) structure-mapping theory of analogy. The simulations indicate that salient object commonalities yield a preference for mappings based on object similarities, while salient relational commonalities yield a preference for mappings based on relational similarities. We test these predictions in five experiments using the one-shot mapping technique which places local and global similarities in opposition. The results support the general conjecture that similarity comparisons involve structural alignment, as well as the more detailed predictions derived from the simulations. These results pose a difficulty for models using representations that do not encode the binding between relations and their arguments.","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T13:03:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9236533.pdf: 6732930 bytes, checksum: 9ade56053b368a9d574050ed8ba8d218 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1992","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:49:40Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:22:37-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"],"dc:identifier":["AAI9236533","(UMI)AAI9236533","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/21275"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 1992 Markman, Arthur Brian"],"dc:subject":["Psychology, Experimental"],"dc:title":["Finding the commonalities: The role of analogical mapping during similarity judgments"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:17Z"}