Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind?
- 1 September 2008
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Memory & Cognition
- Vol. 36 (6) , 1047-1056
- https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.6.1047
Abstract
People often describe things that are similar as close and things that are dissimilar as far apart. Does the way people talk about similarity reveal something fundamental about the way they conceptualize it? Three experiments tested the relationship between similarity and spatial proximity that is encoded in metaphors in language. Similarity ratings for pairs of words or pictures varied as a function of how far apart the stimuli appeared on the computer screen, but the influence of distance on similarity differed depending on the type of judgments the participants made. Stimuli presented closer together were rated more similar during conceptual judgments of abstract entities or unseen object properties but were rated less similar during perceptual judgments of visual appearance. These contrasting results underscore the importance of testing predictions based on linguistic metaphors experimentally and suggest that our sense of similarity arises from our ability to combine available perceptual information with stored knowledge of experiential regularities.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Time in the mind: Using space to think about timePublished by Elsevier ,2007
- Grounding language in actionPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2002
- Perceptions of perceptual symbolsBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1999
- Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representationCognition, 1997
- On metaphoric representationCognition, 1996
- An efficient method for obtaining similarity dataBehavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 1994
- Respects for similarity.Psychological Review, 1993
- Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological ScienceScience, 1987
- The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual SystemCognitive Science, 1980
- A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1980