Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Testing Similarity is Proximityin Realistic Reasoning Situations
Bodo Winter & Teenie Matlock
Cognitive and Information Sciences
23-28 June, 2013
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITY
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYCasasanto (2008)
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYCasasanto (2008)
duty pride
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYCasasanto (2008)
duty pride
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYCasasanto (2008)
duty pride
How similar in meaning?
similar not similar
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYCasasanto (2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYCasasanto (2008)
"same" "different"
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYBoot & Pecher (2012), cf. Breaux & Feist (2008)
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYBoot & Pecher (2012), cf. Breaux & Feist (2008)
SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITYBoot & Pecher (2012), cf. Breaux & Feist (2008)
BUT… … the research is entirely within-subjects
(for a discussion of problems with this, cf. Stanovich & West, 2008)
… the research focuses on abstract tasks
… the unidirectionality/asymmetry of this metaphor has not been extensively tested
Condition 1: close Condition 2: far
82 participants
Space affects similarity ratings
Space affects similarity ratings
Space affects similarity ratings
t(80)=2.34, p<0.03
Space affects similarity ratings
Our experiments
Space > Similarity
Similarity > Space
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Stimuli: People
Similar text
“Ann and Jen attend the same
class, but they have never talked
to each other. Ann likes hip hop,
and Jen does, too. They have
similar political ideals. Ann is
rather conservative, and so is
Jen. Also, Ann is outgoing, and
Jen is, too.”
Dissimilar text
“Ann and Jen attend the same
class, but they have never talked
to each other. Ann likes pop, but
Jen loves jazz. They have
different political ideals. Ann is
rather conservative, but Jen is
not. Also, Ann is outgoing but
Jen is shy.”
401 participants
Similarity affects distance
Similarity affects distance
Similarity affects distance
t(334.73)=6.96, p<0.0001
Similarity affects distance
Our experiments
Space > Similarity
Similarity > Space
Similarity > Space
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Stimuli: People Stimuli: Cities
Similar text
“The city of Swaneplam has just finished its
annual budget, and so has the city of
Scaneplave. Swaneplam decided to invest
more in education and public healthcare
this year. It will also contribute generously
to its public transportation system.
Similarly, Scaneplave will increase funding
for education and healthcare. Also like
Swaneplam, Scaneplave will dramatically
expand funds for transportation this year.”
Dissimilar text
“The city of Swaneplam has just finished its
annual budget, and so has the city of
Scaneplave. Swaneplam decided to invest
more in education and public healthcare
this year. It will also contribute generously
to its public transportation system. In
contrast, Scaneplave will decrease funding
for education and healthcare. Also unlike
Swaneplam, Scaneplave will dramatically
slash funds for transportation this year.”
Design
• Semantic SimilaritySimilar vs. Different
• Phonological SimilarityScaneplave / SwaneplamScaneplave / Mouchdalt
368participants
Semantic Manipulation
t(361)=2.44, p<0.02
Phonological Manipulation
t(361)=1.39, p=0.16
Scaneplavevs.
Mouchdalt
Scaneplavevs.
Swaneplam
Our experiments
Space > Similarity
Similarity > Space
Similarity > Space
Space > Similarity
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Stimuli: People Stimuli: Cities
Condition 1: close Condition 2: far
40 participants
t(78)=2.31, p<0.03
Space affects similarity ratings
Our experiments
Space > Similarity
Similarity > Space
Similarity > Space
Space > Similarity
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Stimuli: People Stimuli: Cities
Conclusions #1
Convergent evidence for SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITY
• Between subjects• Richer linguistic stimuli• More concrete
Conclusions #2
Unidirectionality/Asymmetry ofSIMILARITY IS PROXIMITY ?
Space > Similarity Similarity > Space
Conclusions #2
Physical Warmth > Social Warmth
Social Warmth > Physical Warmth
Distance >Social Warmth
Social Warmth > Distance
Space >Number
Number >Space
Williams & Bargh (2008a) Zhong & Leonardelli (2008)
Williams & Bargh (2008b) Matthews & Matlock (2011)
e.g., Dehaene et al. (1993) eg., Fischer et al. (2003)
Conclusions #3
(1) People judge entities to be more similar to each other when they are
placed closely in space
(2) People judge entities to be closer to each other when they are thought
to be more similar
Conclusions #3
(1) People judge entities to be more similar to each other when they are
placed closely in space
(2) People judge entities to be closer to each other when they are thought
to be more similar
Conclusions #3
This reflects how a metaphor such as SIMILARITY IS PROXIMITY plays a
role in everyday reasoning
Winter & Matlock (accepted)
Teenie Matlock
Christy Banks
Collaborator
THANK YOU
Jesse Falke
Research Assistants
