图形的相似性判断与差异性判断的关系及机制的研究
|
摘要
相似性是认知判断的基础，是分类研究的核心内容。以往许多关于相似性的研究都默认相似性和差异性是一个对立镜像关系。近年来随着多种相似性模型的提出，相似性的研究深入到更加复杂的相似性判断的加工过程。相似性判断和差异性判断的关系问题逐渐成为相似性研究中争论的热点问题。
本研究包括两个实验，借鉴相似性的研究方法和理论探究相似性判断和差异性判断的关系及机制。实验一采用模拟植物孢子的图片，按照匹配特征的数量成对呈现，要求大学生被试用七点量表评定的方法分别进行相似性判断和差异性判断，研究相似性和差异性的关系，以及相似性判断、差异性判断与匹配特征的关系。实验二采用与标准刺激特征相似和关系相似的图形，让被试选择与标准刺激更相似的和差异更大的，进一步分析相似性判断和差异性判断的关系以及两种判断过程的机制。本研究得出以下结论：
(1)相似性判断和差异性判断不是简单的镜像关系。
(2)差异性判断的时间长于相似性判断的时间，差异性判断的过程更加复杂。
(3)差异性判断的得分显著大于相似性判断的得分，差异性判断比较保守。
(4)特征图形的相似性判断比差异性判断更多地考虑匹配特征。
(5)在特征与关系共存的时候，特征和关系在相似性判断和差异性判断中起着不同的作用。在相似性判断中更多地考虑关系，而在差异性判断中，关系作为非匹配性差异较少的受到关注，更多地是以特征作为判断的标准。
Similarity is a fundamental aspect of judgement, it is a central aspect of categoryscience. Conventional wisdom and previous research suggest that similarityjudgement and difference judgement are inverses of one another. In recent years, withthe development of similarity models, the research of similarity is more deeply, andthe relation of similarity judgements and difference judgements gradualy becomes ahot conversation in similarity research..
The present study includes two experiment. Using the way and theories ofsimilarity study, explored the relation and the mechanism of similarity judgement anddifference judgement. Experiment 1 presented the simulative spore picture pairs bydifferent number of the common attributes. Asked the paticipants to estimate thesimilarity and the difference of the pair pictures by a scale ranging from 1 to 7.Explored the relation of similarity judgement and difference judgement and therelation of similarity judgement, difference judgement and the common attributes.Experiment 2 asked subjects choose from the attributional choice and the relationalchoice which was more similar to the standard and more different from the standard.Analyzed the relation of similarity judgement and difference judgement, and themechanism of the two judgement processes. The final results showed that:
First, Similarity and difference judgement were not simply mirror to each other.
Second, the RT of difference judgement was longer than the RT of similarityjudgement.
Third, the scores of difference judgements were bigger than the similarityjudgement scores, difference judgement was more conversation than the judgement ofsimilarity.
Forth, the similarity judgement considered more common attributes than thedifference judgement.
Fifth, when the attributes and the relations all present, they took different part insimilarity judgement and difference judgement, with relations being more attended toin similarity judgement and attributes more attended to in difference judgement.
本研究包括两个实验，借鉴相似性的研究方法和理论探究相似性判断和差异性判断的关系及机制。实验一采用模拟植物孢子的图片，按照匹配特征的数量成对呈现，要求大学生被试用七点量表评定的方法分别进行相似性判断和差异性判断，研究相似性和差异性的关系，以及相似性判断、差异性判断与匹配特征的关系。实验二采用与标准刺激特征相似和关系相似的图形，让被试选择与标准刺激更相似的和差异更大的，进一步分析相似性判断和差异性判断的关系以及两种判断过程的机制。本研究得出以下结论：
(1)相似性判断和差异性判断不是简单的镜像关系。
(2)差异性判断的时间长于相似性判断的时间，差异性判断的过程更加复杂。
(3)差异性判断的得分显著大于相似性判断的得分，差异性判断比较保守。
(4)特征图形的相似性判断比差异性判断更多地考虑匹配特征。
(5)在特征与关系共存的时候，特征和关系在相似性判断和差异性判断中起着不同的作用。在相似性判断中更多地考虑关系，而在差异性判断中，关系作为非匹配性差异较少的受到关注，更多地是以特征作为判断的标准。
Similarity is a fundamental aspect of judgement, it is a central aspect of categoryscience. Conventional wisdom and previous research suggest that similarityjudgement and difference judgement are inverses of one another. In recent years, withthe development of similarity models, the research of similarity is more deeply, andthe relation of similarity judgements and difference judgements gradualy becomes ahot conversation in similarity research..
The present study includes two experiment. Using the way and theories ofsimilarity study, explored the relation and the mechanism of similarity judgement anddifference judgement. Experiment 1 presented the simulative spore picture pairs bydifferent number of the common attributes. Asked the paticipants to estimate thesimilarity and the difference of the pair pictures by a scale ranging from 1 to 7.Explored the relation of similarity judgement and difference judgement and therelation of similarity judgement, difference judgement and the common attributes.Experiment 2 asked subjects choose from the attributional choice and the relationalchoice which was more similar to the standard and more different from the standard.Analyzed the relation of similarity judgement and difference judgement, and themechanism of the two judgement processes. The final results showed that:
First, Similarity and difference judgement were not simply mirror to each other.
Second, the RT of difference judgement was longer than the RT of similarityjudgement.
Third, the scores of difference judgements were bigger than the similarityjudgement scores, difference judgement was more conversation than the judgement ofsimilarity.
Forth, the similarity judgement considered more common attributes than thedifference judgement.
Fifth, when the attributes and the relations all present, they took different part insimilarity judgement and difference judgement, with relations being more attended toin similarity judgement and attributes more attended to in difference judgement.
引文
阴国恩，安蓉，郑金香，分类中相似性的理论与模型，心理学探新，2005(1)．
莫雷，常建芳．类别特征的相似性与竞争性对归类的影响[J]，心理学报，2003，35(5：628-635)．
M．W．艾森克，M．T．基恩著，高定国、肖晓云译，荆其诚审校，《认知心理学》，华东师范大学出版社，2004年2月第1版，446-448．
ANN L. MCGILL, Alignable and nonalignable differences in causal explanations, Memory & Cognition, 2002, 30 (3), 456-468
Barsalou, L. W. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1999, 22(4), 577-660.
Blok, S. V., & Gentner, D.. Reasoning from shared structure. Proceedings of the 22nd meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2000.
Brian F. Bowdle & Dedre Gentner, Informativity and Asymmetry in Comparisons, Cognitive Psychology, 1997,34, 244-286.
Douglas L. Merlin, Robert L. Goldstone, and Dedre Gentner,Respects for Similarity, Psychological Review, 1993. Vol. 100. No. 2. 254-278.
Edward J. Wisniewski, Concepts and Categorization, Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 2002.
Gardenfors, P. Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: The M/T Press,2000.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25(4), 524-575.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B.. Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 1994, 5(3), 152-158.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. Structural alignment in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 1997,52 (1), 45-56.
Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition,2001, 29(4), 565-577.
Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition,2001 29(4), 565-577.
Hasson, U., & Sloutsky, V. M. Similarity and difference judgements under perceptual and non perceptual conditions. In W. Gray & C. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the ⅩⅩⅣ Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2002, 429-434.
Hintzman, D. L. Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 1986, 93,411-428.
Janet Pierre humbert, EXEMPLAR THEORY, Probability Theory in Linguistics 2 LSA, January 3, 2003.
Keane, M.T, Hackett, D. & Davenport, J. Similarity processing depends on the similarities present. In K. Stenning (Ed.), Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Edbaum,2001.
Keh-Jiann Chen, Jia-Ming You. A Study on Word Similarity using Context Vector Models. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 2002, Vol. 7,237-58.
Kolodner, J. L. Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Kaufrnann. 1993.
Komatsu LK. Recent view of conceptual structure [J].Psychological Bulletin, 1992, 112:500-526.
Kruschke J K. ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review,1992,99:22-44.
Malt B C, Sloman S A, Gennari S, Shi M, Wang Y, Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Joural of Memory and Language,1999, 40:230-262.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 1996,24 (2): 235-249.
Smith EE. Concepts and induction, Poster MI. ed. Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989,501-526.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 1993b, 25(4), 431-467.
Markman, A. B. Structural alignment in similarity and difference judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1996, 3(2), 227-230.
Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E. J. Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1997,23(1), 54-70.
Markman, A. B. Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. Structure mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology,2000, 113(4), 501-538.
Markman A B, Gentner, D. Nonintentional similarity processing. In: R. Hassin, J.A. Bargh, J.S.
Uleman (Eds.). The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Medin, Robert L. Goldstone & Dedre Gentner, Similarity involving attributes and relations:
Judgements of similatity and difference are not inverses. Psychologycal, Science, 1990,1(1), 64-69.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review,1993, 100, 254-278.
Nosofsky RM. Examplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition and typicality[J].Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory& Cognition, 1998, (14): 700-708.
Smith J D,Minda J P.Prototypes in the mist:the early epochs of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1998,24:1411-1430.
Tom Verguts & Get Storms. Measures of similarity in models of categorization. Memory & Cognition, 2004, 32 (3), 379-389.
Tversky, A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 327-35.
Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing Research,1998, 35, 413-426.
莫雷，常建芳．类别特征的相似性与竞争性对归类的影响[J]，心理学报，2003，35(5：628-635)．
M．W．艾森克，M．T．基恩著，高定国、肖晓云译，荆其诚审校，《认知心理学》，华东师范大学出版社，2004年2月第1版，446-448．
ANN L. MCGILL, Alignable and nonalignable differences in causal explanations, Memory & Cognition, 2002, 30 (3), 456-468
Barsalou, L. W. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1999, 22(4), 577-660.
Blok, S. V., & Gentner, D.. Reasoning from shared structure. Proceedings of the 22nd meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2000.
Brian F. Bowdle & Dedre Gentner, Informativity and Asymmetry in Comparisons, Cognitive Psychology, 1997,34, 244-286.
Douglas L. Merlin, Robert L. Goldstone, and Dedre Gentner,Respects for Similarity, Psychological Review, 1993. Vol. 100. No. 2. 254-278.
Edward J. Wisniewski, Concepts and Categorization, Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 2002.
Gardenfors, P. Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: The M/T Press,2000.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25(4), 524-575.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B.. Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 1994, 5(3), 152-158.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. Structural alignment in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 1997,52 (1), 45-56.
Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition,2001, 29(4), 565-577.
Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition,2001 29(4), 565-577.
Hasson, U., & Sloutsky, V. M. Similarity and difference judgements under perceptual and non perceptual conditions. In W. Gray & C. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the ⅩⅩⅣ Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2002, 429-434.
Hintzman, D. L. Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 1986, 93,411-428.
Janet Pierre humbert, EXEMPLAR THEORY, Probability Theory in Linguistics 2 LSA, January 3, 2003.
Keane, M.T, Hackett, D. & Davenport, J. Similarity processing depends on the similarities present. In K. Stenning (Ed.), Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Edbaum,2001.
Keh-Jiann Chen, Jia-Ming You. A Study on Word Similarity using Context Vector Models. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 2002, Vol. 7,237-58.
Kolodner, J. L. Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Kaufrnann. 1993.
Komatsu LK. Recent view of conceptual structure [J].Psychological Bulletin, 1992, 112:500-526.
Kruschke J K. ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review,1992,99:22-44.
Malt B C, Sloman S A, Gennari S, Shi M, Wang Y, Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Joural of Memory and Language,1999, 40:230-262.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 1996,24 (2): 235-249.
Smith EE. Concepts and induction, Poster MI. ed. Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989,501-526.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 1993b, 25(4), 431-467.
Markman, A. B. Structural alignment in similarity and difference judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1996, 3(2), 227-230.
Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E. J. Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1997,23(1), 54-70.
Markman, A. B. Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. Structure mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology,2000, 113(4), 501-538.
Markman A B, Gentner, D. Nonintentional similarity processing. In: R. Hassin, J.A. Bargh, J.S.
Uleman (Eds.). The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Medin, Robert L. Goldstone & Dedre Gentner, Similarity involving attributes and relations:
Judgements of similatity and difference are not inverses. Psychologycal, Science, 1990,1(1), 64-69.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review,1993, 100, 254-278.
Nosofsky RM. Examplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition and typicality[J].Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory& Cognition, 1998, (14): 700-708.
Smith J D,Minda J P.Prototypes in the mist:the early epochs of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1998,24:1411-1430.
Tom Verguts & Get Storms. Measures of similarity in models of categorization. Memory & Cognition, 2004, 32 (3), 379-389.
Tversky, A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 327-35.
Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing Research,1998, 35, 413-426.