Is the Self-Concept a Habitual Referent in Judgments of Similarity?

Catrambone, Richard; Beike, Denise R.; Niedenthal, Paula M.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00349.x

Cited by 54 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Predictions about the self varied more than predictions about another person. This is consistent with the suggestion of a more elaborate self-knowledge than other-knowledge (Catrambone et al, 1996;Sande et al, 1988). Unexpectedly, however, this effect was only present for a similar other.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

The order effect in self–other predictions: considering target as a moderator

Pollmann

Finkenauer

Dijk

2007

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two factors known to affect the use of self in social prediction, target similarity and order of predictions, are considered in concert to understand how the use of self varies across the prediction of different targets. Replicating earlier studies, we predicted and found that people use the self more when predicting similar others than when predicting dissimilar others. Extending existing studies, we predicted and found order effects for similar others. As predicted no order effects emerged for predictions for dissimilar targets. Because the self is more accessible during the prediction of similar others, it matters whether self-predictions precede or follow other-predictions. Feature-matching theory is proposed as a possible explanation for the emergence of order effects in predictions of similar targets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

The order effect in self–other predictions: considering target as a moderator

Pollmann

Finkenauer

Dijk

2007

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, due to the randomized design, such a preference should have applied equally to all stimulus pairs, and could hardly have changed the weighting. Catrambone, Beike, and Niedenthal (1996) found, consistent with Tversky's (1977) feature-matching theory, higher similarity judgments of pairs of countries (i.e., "How similar is A to B?") when B (the referent) was highly familiar and A (the subject) less familiar than were found in the reverse case.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 65%

Beware how you compare: comparison direction dictates stimulus-valence-modulated presentation-order effects in preference judgment

Englund¹,

Hellström

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Englund and Hellström (Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25:82-94, 2012a) found a tendency to prefer the left (first-read) of two attractive alternatives but the right (second-read) of two unattractive alternatives-a valence-dependent word-order effect (WOE). They used stimulus pairs spaced horizontally, and preference was indicated by choosing one of several written statements (e.g., "apple I like more than pear"). The results were interpreted as being due to stimulus position, with the magnitude of the left stimulus having a greater impact on the comparison outcome than the magnitude of the right. Here we investigated the effects of the positioning of the stimuli versus the semantics of the response alternatives (i.e., comparison direction) on the relative impacts of the stimuli. Participants rated preferences for stimuli spaced horizontally with the response alternatives not dictating a comparison direction (Exp. 1), and stimuli spaced vertically using Englund and Hellström's (Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25:82-94, 2012a) response alternatives, which dictate a comparison direction semantically (Exp. 2). The results showed that the valence-dependent WOE found by Englund and Hellström (Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25:82-94, 2012a) was not due to the horizontal stimulus positioning per se, but to the induced comparison direction, with the effect probably being mediated by attention directed at the subject of the comparison. We concluded that a set comparison direction is required for the valence-dependent WOE to appear, and that using Hellström's sensation-weighting model to determine stimulus weights is a way to verify the comparison direction. (Dean, 1980), and professional judges' ratings in figure-skating contests (Bruine de Bruin, 2005, 2006. Analogous effects have been found by psychophysicists for one and a half centuries (see, e.g., Guilford, 1954, andHellström, 1985, for reviews), and the psychophysical tradition to use many stimulus pairs of varying magnitudes has made it possible to discover that the size and direction of presentation-order effects vary with, among several factors, the stimuli's magnitude level. For example, Hellström (2003) found that, in length comparisons of lines of relatively long durations, subjects overestimated the left out of two short lines but the right out of two long lines. Similarly, in comparisons of musical excerpts, Koh (1967) found a tendency to prefer the first of two unpleasant excerpts but the second of two pleasant excerpts; the size of this effect varied linearly with the rated pleasantness of the stimulus pairs. Analogous results were found by Englund and Hellström (2012b) for pairs of successive jingles as well as for color patterns. These are but a few examples of what Fechner (1860) called space-order error (SOE) and time-order error (TOE). As is hinted at by the two terms, a SOE appears when stimuli are separated spatially, and a TOE when stimuli are separated temporally.M. P. Englund cut-e Sweden,

show abstract

“…In support of this position, Tversky (1977 ;Tversky & Gati, 1978) found that the preferred direction of similarity comparison was commonly the one with the greater degree of judged similarity . Such asymmetries in similarity judgments have been obtained in areas as diverse as music perception (Bartlett & Dowling, 1988) and self-other similarity judgments (Catrambone, Beike, & Niedenthal, 1996 ;Holyoak & Gordon, 1983 ;Srull & Gaelick, 1983) .…”

Section: Previous Accounts Of Comparison Asymmetries Feature Contrastmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…One consistent finding in the literature is that subjects rate others (both individuals and groups) and being more similar to the self than vice versa (e .g., Catrambone, Beike, & Niedenthal, 1996 ;Holyoak & Gordon, 1983 ;Srull & Gaelick, 1983) . A second finding is that subjects are generally more willing to make inferences and predictions from the self to others than vice versa (e.g., Kunda & Nisbett, 1988 ;McFarland & Miller, 1990) .…”

Section: Systematicity and Related Notionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informativity and Asymmetry in Comparisons

Bowdle¹,

Gentner²

1997

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose an account of comparison asymmetries based on viewing comparison as a process of structural alignment and mapping . Specifically, we hypothesize that (1) comparison asymmetries result from directional differences in informativity, and that (2) asymmetries can therefore be predicted from the relative degree of systematicity or conceptual coherence of the items being compared . In Experiment 1, we found a clear preference for placing the more systematic of two passages in the base position of a comparison . Experiments 1 and 2 further showed that structural alignability is crucial in obtaining such asymmetries . In Experiment 3, we found that asymmetries are predicted by the relative systematicity of the comparisons items rather than by the relative size of the distinctive feature sets . These results are inconsistent with accounts of asymmetry based on feature contrast or stimulus bias . In Experiments 4 through 6, we tested the functional implications of our account by examining inference projection and perceived informativity across asymmetric comparisons . Critically, comparisons having the more systematic item as the base were more likely to result in inference projection and other forms of target modification and were rated as more informative than reverse comparisons . We conclude by demonstrating that this account can explain comparison asymmetries without positing underlying asymmetries in subjective similarity, and that it offers a unified approach to the directionality of literal comparisons, analogies, and metaphors .

show abstract

Is the Self-Concept a Habitual Referent in Judgments of Similarity?

Cited by 54 publications

References 21 publications

The order effect in self–other predictions: considering target as a moderator

The order effect in self–other predictions: considering target as a moderator

Beware how you compare: comparison direction dictates stimulus-valence-modulated presentation-order effects in preference judgment

Informativity and Asymmetry in Comparisons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About