Individual differences in the process of object-oriented comparison

The theoretical and empirical aspects of the problem of individual differences as manifested in the process of comparing objects and concepts are considered. The results of empirical study, which identified individual differences in subjective estimation of the value of the minute similarity between two differing objects, are presented. It is shown that these differences are related to the peculiarities of verbalizations, i.e. the proportion of descriptions in terms of similarities and differences between objects, as well as the parameters of comparison. The results suggest a constructivist nature of the process of comparison as a whole and the subjective estimation of the value of the similarity in particular.

1. Bassok M., Medin D. L. Birds of a feather flock together: Similarity judgments with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 1997, vol. 36, pp. 311–336.
2. Buunk A. P., Gibbons F.X. Social comparison orientation: a new perspective on those who do and those who don't compare with others. In Guimond S. (ed.), Social Comparison and Social Psychology: Understanding cognition, inter-group relations and culture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 15-32.
3. Dunham P., Dunham F. Developmental antecedents of taxonomic and thematic strategies at 3 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 1995, vol. 31, pp. 483–493.
4. Estes Z. A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 2003, vol. 27, pp. 911–921.
5. Estes Z., Golonka S., Jones L.L. Thematic Thinking: The Apprehension and Consequences of Thematic Relations. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2011, vol. 54, pp. 249-294.
6. Estes Z., Hasson U. The importance of being nonalignable: A critical test of the structural alignment theory of similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2004, vol. 30, pp. 1082–1092.
7. Gentner D., Brem S. K. Is snow really similar to a shovel? Distinguishing similarity from thematic relatedness. Proc. of the 21st annual conf. of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999, pp. 179–184.
8. Gentner D., Markman A. B. Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 1994, vol. 5, pp. 152-158.
9. Gentner D., Markman A. B. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 1997, vol. 52, pp. 45–56.
10. Gibbons F.X., Buunk A.P. Individual differences in social comparison: development and validation of a measure of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 129–142.
11. Golonka S., Estes Z. Thematic Relations Affect Similarity Via Commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2009, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1454-1464.
12. Hemphill K.J., Lehman D.R. Social comparisons and their affective consequences: The importance of comparison dimension and individual difference variables. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1991, vol. 10, pp. 372-394.
13. Landis D., Silver C.A., Jones J. M., Messick S. Level of proficiency and multidimensional viewpoints about problem similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967 vol. 51, pp. 216-222.
14. Markman A. B., Gentner D. Splitting the difference: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 1993a, vol. 32, pp. 517-535.
15. Markman A. B., Gentner D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 1993b, vol. 25, pp. 431-467.
16. Markman A. B., Gentner D. Structure mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology, 2000, vol. 113, pp. 501–538.
17. Nosulenko V.N. Psychkophysika vospriyatiya estestvennoj sredy [Psychophysics of perception of natural environment]. Moscow, Institut psihologii RAN, 2007. 400 p. (in Russ.).
18. Nosulenko V.N., Samoylenko E.S. Verbalnyj metod v izuchenii vospriyatiya izmenenij v okrujayuschej srede [Verbal method in investigation of perception of changes in environment]. In Nosulenko V.N., Epifanov E.G., Savchenko T.V. (eds.), Psykhologiya i okrujayuschaya sreda [Psychology and environment], Moscow, Institut psihologii RAN, 1995, pp. 13-59. (in Russ.).
19. O’Hare D. Individual differences in perceived similarity and preference for visual art: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 1976, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 445-452.
20. Petrenko V.F. Mnogomernoe soznanie. Psykhosemanticheskaya paradigma [Multidimensional consciousness. Psychosemantic paradigm]. Moscow, EKSMO, 2014. 440 p. (in Russ.).
21. Samoylenko E.S. Problemy sravneniya v psykhologicheskom issledovanii [Problems of comparison in psychological research]. Moscow, Institut psihologii RAN, 2010. 416 p.
22. Samoylenko E.S. Process sravneniya v systemakh poznaniya, obscheniya i lichnosti. Diss. dokt. psikhol. nauk [Process of comparison in systems of cognition, communication and personality. Dr. Sci. (Psychology) thesis]. Moscow, 2012. 523p. (In Russ.).
23. Samoylenko E.S., Melkumyan T.A. Sravnenie skhodnykh zritelnykh obektov v razlichnykh kontekstakh ikh predyavleniya [Comparison of similar visual objects in different contexts of their presentation]. Eksperimentalnaya psykhologiya [Experimental Psychology (Russia)], 2011, no.3, pp. 42-58. (In Russ.; abstr. in Engl.).
24. Simmons S., Estes Z. Individual differences in the perception of similarity and difference. Cognition, 2008, vol. 108, pp. 781-795.
25. Strauss A., Corbin J. M. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London, Sage Publication, 1990. 270 p.
26. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, vol. 84, pp. 327–352.
27. Waxman S. R., Namy L. L. Challenging the notion of a thematic preference in young children. Developmental Psychology, 1997, vol. 33, pp. 555–567.
28. Wisniewski E. J., Bassok M. What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 1999, vol. 39, pp. 208–238.