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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98, 409–429.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.
Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition (pp. 129–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733–764.
Borghi, A. M. (2004). Object concepts and action: Extracting affordances from objects parts. Acta Psychologica, 115, 69–96.
Casasanto, D. (in press). Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning.
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.
Goldstone, R. [L.] (1994). An efficient method for obtaining similarity data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26, 381–386.
Goldstone, R. L., Lippa, Y., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Altering object representations through category learning. Cognition, 78, 27–43.
Goodman, N. (1972). Seven strictures on similarity. In N. Goodman (Ed.), Problems and projects (pp. 437–447). New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4, 195–208.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254–278.
Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173–204.
Murphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition, 62, 99–108.
Prinz, J. J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richardson, D. C., & Spivey, M. J. (2000). Representation, space and Hollywood Squares: Looking at things that aren’t there anymore. Cognition, 76, 269–295.
Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317–1323.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215.
Sweetser, E. E. (1997, July). Regular metaphoricity in gesture: Bodilybased models of speech interaction. Paper presented at the 16e Congrès International des Linguistes, Paris.
Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 629–640.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, M. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116, 185–203.
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71–88). New York: Harcourt, Brace. (Original work published 1923)
Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. A. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954–958.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, NRSA Postdoctoral Fellowship F32MH072502, and Grant SEJ2006-04732/PSIC, DGI from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science to D.C.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Casasanto, D. Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind?. Memory & Cognition 36, 1047–1056 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1047
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1047