Comparison of similar visual objects in different contexts

The aim of the study was to investigate whether subjective ratings of two objects’ similarity is affected by the context they are presented in. Photographs of human eyes that differed in the level of similarity were used as experimental stimuli. The experiment consisted of three series: the two target objects were presented without context, or in the surrounding of 7 either similar to or different from them in form, size and color objects. In all conditions, the instruction was to rate similarity of two target eyes using a 10 point scale. In addition, participants were asked to produce verbal descriptions of reasons for giving a certain similarity rating. An original verbal data analysis procedure was used to compare tendencies concerning descriptions of similarities and differences of objects. The results showed significant influence of the type of context on the two objects’ similarity-ratings. Similarity ratings produced in the similar objects’ context were significantly less than the values given in the dissimilar objects’ context. The relative proportion of verbalizations of similarity and difference of two target eyes was found to be different in experimental situations.

1. Arnhejm R. Iskusstvo i vizual’noe vosprijatie. M.: Izd. «Progress», 1974.

2. Gregori R. Razumnyj glaz. M.: Izd. «Mir», 1972.

3. Nosulenko V. N. Psihofizika vosprijatija estestvennoj sredy. M.: Izd. «Institut psihologii RAN», 2007.

4. Rodicheva E. I. K probleme antonimii: Diss. ... kand. filol. nauk. M.: MGU, 1976.

5. Samojlenko E. S. Operacija sravnenija pri reshenii kognitivno-kommunikativnyh zadach: Diss. ... kand. psihol. nauk. M.: IP AN, 1986.

6. Samojlenko E. S. Problemy sravnenija v psihologicheskom issledovanii. M.: Izd. «Institut psihologii RAN», 2010.

7. Sokolova E. E. Vvedenie v psihologiju // Obshaja psihologija: V 7 t. / Pod red. B. S. Bratusja. T. 1.: Uchebnik dlja studentov vyssh. ucheb zavedenij. 3-e izd., ster. M.: Izd. centr «Akademija», 2008.

8. Trubeckoj N. S. Osnovy fonologii. M.: Izd. «Inostrannaja literatura», 1960.

9. Hassin R. Making features similar: Comparison processes affect perception // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2001. V. 8. № 4. P. 728–731.
10. Markman A., Gentner D. Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons.// Memory Cognition. 1996. V. 24. № 2. P. 235–249.
11. Markman A., Gentner D. Splitting the Differences: A Structural Alignment View of Similarity // Journal of Memory and Language. 1993. V. 32. № 4. P. 517–535.
12. Medin D., Goldstone D., Gentner D. Respects for Similarity // Psychological Review. 1993. V. 100. № 2. P. 254–278.
13. Mussen P., Rosenzweig M. R. Psychology. An introduction. London: D. C. Heath and Company, 1973.
14. Nosulenko V., Samoylenko E. Approche systémique de l’analyse des verbalisations dans le cadre de l’étude des processus perceptifs et cognitifs // Informations sur les Sciences Sociales. 1997. V. 36. № 2. P. 223–261.
15. Nosulenko V., Samoylenko E. Evaluation de la qualité perçue des produits et services: approche interdisciplinaire // International Journal of Design and Innovation Research. 2001. V. 2. № 2. P. 35–60.
16. Stapel D. A., Koomen W. Social Categorization and Perceptual Judgment of Size: When Perception Is Social // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997. V. 73. № 6. P. 1177–1190.