Arthur B. Markman

Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons

Similarity comparisons are a basic component of cognition, and there are many elegant models of this process. None of these models describe comparisons of structured representations, although mounting evidence suggests that mental representations are well characterized by structured hierarchical systems of relations. We propose that structured representations can be compared via structural alignment, a process derived from models of analogical reasoning. The general prediction of structural alignment is that similarity comparisons lead subjects to attend to the matching relational structure in a pair of items. This prediction is illustrated with a computational simulation that also suggests that the strength of the relational focus is diminished when the relational match is impoverished, or when competing interpretations lead to rich object matches. These claims are tested in four experiments using the one-shot mapping paradigm, which places object similarity and relational similarity in opposition. The results support the hypothesis that similarity involves the alignment of structured representations.

Structural Alignment in Comparison: No Difference Without Similarity

Theories of similarity generally agree that the similarity of a pair increases with its commonalities and decreases with its differences. Recent research suggests that this comparison process involves an alignment of structured representations yielding commonalities, differences related to the commonalities, and differences unrelated to the commonalities. One counterintuitive prediction of this view is that it should be easier to find the differences between pairs of similar items than to find the differences between pairs of dissimilar items. This prediction is particularly strong for differences that are related to the commonalities. We tested this prediction in two experiments in which subjects listed a single difference for each of a number of word pairs. The results are consistent with the predictions of structural alignment. In light of these findings, we discuss the potential role of structural alignment in other cognitive processes that involve comparisons.

Category Use and Category Learning

Categorization models based on laboratory research focus on a narrower range of explanatory constructs than appears necessary for explaining the structure of natural categories. This mismatch is caused by the reliance on classification as the basis of laboratory studies. Category representations are formed in the process of interacting with category members. Thus, laboratory studies must explore a range of category uses. The authors review the effects of a variety of category uses on category learning. First, there is an extensive discussion contrasting classification with a predictive inference task that is formally equivalent to classification but leads to a very different pattern of learning. Then, research on the effects of problem solving, communication, and combining inference and classification is reviewed.

What is it?: Categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products.

To understand really new products, consumers face the challenge of constructing new knowledge structures rather simply changing existing ones. Recent research in categorization suggests that one strategy for creating representations for these new products is to use information already contained in familiar product categories. While knowledge from multiple existing categories may be relevant, little research has examined how (and if) consumers process information drawn from more than one domain. We use two experiments to demonstrate how consumers use cues from multiple categories to develop expectations about and preferences for new products. Our findings suggest that the first plausible category label provided to the consumer significantly influences their categorizations, expectations, and preferences. Only when advertisers place limits on the type of information to transfer from each existing category can consumers use information from multiple categories effectively.

Constraining Theories of Embodied Cognition

Influences of perceptual and motor activity on evaluation have led to theories of embodied cognition suggesting that putatively complex judgments can be carried out using only perceptual and motor representations. We present an experiment that revisited a movement-compatibility effect in which people are faster to respond to positive words by pulling a lever than by pushing a lever and are faster to respond to negative words by pushing than by pulling. We demonstrate that the compatibility effect depends on peoples representation of their selves in space rather than on their physical location. These data suggest that accounting for embodied phenomena requires understanding the complex interplay between perceptual and motor representations and peoples representations of their selves in space.

How Do Indirect Measures of Evaluation Work? Evaluating the Inference of Prejudice in the Implicit Association Test

There has been significant interest in indirect measures of attitudes like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), presumably because of the possibility of uncovering implicit prejudices. The authors derived a set of qualitative predictions for peoples performance in the IAT on the basis of random walk models. These were supported in 3 experiments comparing clearly positive or negative categories to nonwords. They also provided evidence that participants shift their response criterion when doing the IAT. Because of these criterion shifts, a response pattern in the IAT can have multiple causes. Thus, it is not possible to infer a single cause (such as prejudice) from IAT results. A surprising additional result was that nonwords were treated as though they were evaluated more negatively than obviously negative items like insects, suggesting that low familiarity items may generate the pattern of data previously interpreted as evidence for implicit prejudice.

Overcoming the early entrant advantage: the role of alignable and nonalignable differences

Prior research has focused on early entrant advantage rather than on theories that explain and predict how late entrants can surpass the early entrants performance. In this research, the authors p...

COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN SIMILARITY COMPARISONS

Similarity is a central component of many cognitive processes. Current research suggests that similarity is well characterized as a comparison of structured representations. This process yields commonalities, differences related to the commonalities (alignable differences), and differences not related to the commonalities (nonalignable differences). In the first study, further evidence for this tripartite distinction is provided in a commonality and difference listing study involving pairs of pictures. This study indicates that alignable differences rather than nonalignable differences are central to the comparison process by virtue of their connection to the commonalities. The second study further demonstrates that alignable differences count more against the similarity of a pair than do nonalignable differences. We end by discussing implications of the distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences for other cognitive processes involving comparisons.

Inference using categories.

How do people use category membership and similarity for making inductive inferences? The authors addressed this question by examining the impact of category labels and category features on inference and classification tasks that were designed to be comparable. In the inference task, participants predicted the value of a missing feature of an item given its category label and other feature values. In the classification task, participants predicted the category label of an item given its feature values. The results from 4 experiments suggest that category membership influences inference even when similarity information contradicts the category label. This tendency was stronger when the category label conveyed class inclusion information than when the label reflected a feature of the category. These findings suggest that category membership affects inference beyond similarity and that category labels and category features are 2 different things.

The devaluation effect: Activating a need devalues unrelated objects

It is commonly assumed that an object capable of satisfying a need will be perceived as subjectively more valuable as the need for it intensifies. For example, the more active the need to eat, the more valuable food will become. This outcome could be called a valuation effect. In this article, we suggest a second basic influence of needs on evaluations: that activating a focal need (e.g., to eat) makes objects unrelated to that need (e.g., shampoo) less valuable, an outcome we refer to as the devaluation effect. Two existing studies support the existence of a devaluation effect using manipulations of the need to eat and to smoke and measuring attractiveness of consumer products and willingness to purchase raffle tickets. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that consumers are not aware of the devaluation effect and its influence on their preferences.