PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article THE EFFECTS OF ALIGNABILITY ON MEMORY

According to structure-mapping theory, the process of comparison is one of alignment and mapping between representational structures. This process induces a focus on commonalities and alignable differences (i.e., those related to the commonalities). Nonalignable differences (i.e., those not related to the commonalities) are held to be neglected. The theory thus predicts increased focus on the corresponding information, whether these are commonalities or differences. In this article, we explore the implications of this claim for memory: Specifically, we test the prediction that alignable differences are more likely to be processed and stored than nonalignable differences. We present a study in which people made similarity comparisons between pairs of pictures and then were probed for recall. The recall probes were figures taken from the pictures and were either alignable or nonalignable differences between the pairs. The alignable differences were better memory probes than the nonalignable differences, suggesting that people were more likely to encode and store the corresponding information than the noncorresponding information.

[1]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall , 1972 .

[2]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Considerations of some problems of comprehension. , 1973 .

[3]  W. Chase,et al.  Visual information processing. , 1974 .

[4]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Dimensional Commensurability and Cue Utilization in Comparative Judgment. , 1974 .

[5]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective. Technical Report No. 41. , 1977 .

[6]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[7]  John B. Black,et al.  Scripts in memory for text , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  D. Gentner.  Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[10]  William F. Brewer,et al.  Use of plan schemata in the recall and recognition of goal-directed actions. , 1983 .

[11]  D. Gentner,et al.  Systematicity and Surface Similarity in the Development of Analogy. Technical Report No. 358. , 1985 .

[12]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine * , 2003 .

[13]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Systematicity and Surface Similarity in the Development of Analogy , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. , 1987 .

[15]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[16]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[17]  A. Ortony,et al.  Similarity and Analogical Reasoning , 1991 .

[18]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  D. Gentner,et al.  Splitting the Differences: A Structural Alignment View of Similarity , 1993 .

[20]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  D. Gentner,et al.  Respects for similarity , 1993 .

[22]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping , 1994 .

[23]  Mark T. Keane.  Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  D. Gentner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT IN COMPARISON: No Difference Without Similarity , 2022 .

[25]  Robert L. Goldstone.  The role of similarity in categorization: providing a groundwork , 1994, Cognition.

[26]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Similarity is like analogy: Structural alignment in comparison , 1995 .

[27]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Comparison and Choice: Relations between Similarity Processes and Decision Processes , 1995 .

[28]  D. Medin,et al.  Similarity and Alignment in Choice , 1995 .

[29]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  D. Gentner,et al.  Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[31]  D. Gentner,et al.  Comparison and Categorization in the Development of Relational Similarity , 1996 .

[32]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[33]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Young children's discovery of spatial classification , 1997 .

[34]  A. Markman,et al.  Similar and Different : The Differentiation of Basic-Level Categories , 1997 .

[35]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Similar and Different: The Differentiation of Basic-Level Categories , 1997 .