The Importance of Being Nonalignable: a Critical Test of the Structural Alignment Theory of Similarity Structural Alignment Theory

Zachary Estes,Mark Keane,U. Hasson,A. Markman,Barbara,Brian Ross

Abstract:The structural alignment theory of similarity distinguishes 2 types of difference that may occur between stimuli: Alignable differences are those related to a commonality, whereas nonalignable differences are not related to a commonality. Alignment theory predicts that alignable differences should be more heavily weighted than nonalignable differences in similarity judgment. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that, contrary to this prediction, nonalignable differences exerted a greater impact than alignable differences in similarity and difference judgments of geometric stimuli. Experiment 3 revealed that the relative weight accorded a given difference was also affected by contextual constraints. Thus, although the experiments supported the validity of the distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences, results were discordant with the specific prediction of structural alignment theory. Structural alignment theory has provided many important contributions to cognitive science over the last 2 decades. Since its introduction by Gentner (1983), alignment theory has successfully explained a broad range of cognitive phenomena in such domainssentially, alignment theory provides a unified account of comparative cognitive processes. Simply stated, structural alignment theory posits that comparison and related cognitive operations are accomplished by putting the structure of one concept into alignment or correspondence with the structure of the other concept to which it is compared. When comparing a rose and a violet, for instance, one aligns the two concepts. This alignment process may yield commonalities (e.g., both roses and violets have petals), alignable differences, which are related to commonalities (e.g., roses are red, violets are blue), and nonalignable differences, which are not related to commonal-ities (e.g., roses have thorns, violets do not). Put another way, alignable differences occur when the two concepts have different values (e.g., red v. blue) on a common dimension (i.e., color of petals). 1 Nonalignable differences occur when one concept possesses an attribute that has no correspondence in the other concept (e.g., thorns). This distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences is unique to structural alignment theory (Gentner & Markman, 1997); feature-based models of similarity (e.g., Tver-sky, 1977) distinguish only between commonalities and differences. The further distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences is critical because it provides the basis of alignment theory's predictions about how people evaluate similarity. A central claim of alignment theory is that " alignable differences are more salient than nonalignable differences " (Gentner & Markman, 1997, p. 50). As delineated below, this differential " salience " is manifest as a difference in the relative weighting …

Psychology