Memory & Cognition

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 612–622 | Cite as

Isolating the effects of symbolic distance, and semantic congruity in comparative judgments: An additive-factors analysis

  • Edward M. Duncan
  • Carl E. McFarland


The time needed to compare two symbols increases as the cognitive distance between them on the relevant dimension increases (symbolic distance effect). Furthermore, when subjects are told to choose either the larger or the smaller of two stimuli, the response time is shorter if the instruction is congruent with the overall size of the stimuli (semantic congruity effect). Three experiments were conducted to determine the locus of these effects in terms of a sequence of processing stages. The developmental aspects of these effects were also evaluated, as the subjects were from kindergarten, first grade, third grade, fifth grade, and college. By varying the visual quality of the stimulus in each experiment, it was determined that the distance effect resides in a comparison stage, whereas the congruity effect is an encoding phenomenon. Both distance and congruity effects were present at all grade levels, but they decreased in magnitude as grade increased. The results were interpreted relative to recent models of comparative judgments.

Reference Notes

  1. Riley, C. A., Hu, J. M., & Hinrichs, J. V.The quantitative basis of children’s number concepts. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, March 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Sternberg, S.Decomposing mental processes with reaction time data. Invited address presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit, Michigan, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Pachella, R. G.The effect of set on the tachistoscopic recognition of pictures (Tech. Rep. 17). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Human Performance Center, 1973.Google Scholar


  1. Banks, W. P. Encoding and processing of symbolic information in comparative judgments. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Banks, W. P., Clark, H. H., &Lucy P. The focus of the semantic congruity effect in comparative judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975,1, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks, W. P., Fujii, M., &Kayra-Stuart, F. Semantic congruity effects in comparative judgments of magnitude of digits.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bracey, G. W. Two operations in character recognition: A partial replication.Perception & Psychophysics, 1969,6, 357–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L. The development of memory: Knowing, knowing about knowing, and knowing how to know. In H. W. Reese (Ed.),Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. S., Olver, R. R., &Greenfield, P. M.Studies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  7. Buckley, P. B., &Gillman, C. B. Comparisons of digits and dot patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,103, 1131–1136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Curtis, D. W., Paulus, M. A., &Rule, S. J. Relation between disjunctive reaction time and stimulus difference.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,99, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan, E. M., &Kellas, G. Developmental changes in the internal structure of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1978,26, 328–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flavell, J. H. Developmental studies of mediated memory. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsitt (Eds.),Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. Haber, R. N. The nature of the effect of set on perception.Psychological Review, 1966,73, 335–350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardzinski, M., &Pachella, R. G. The manipulation of stimulus quality and the definition of stimulus encoding operations in memory scanning experiments.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,27, 232–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris, G. J., &Fleer, R. E. High speed memory scanning in mental retardates: Evidence for a central processing deficit.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1974,17, 452–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrmann, D. J., &Landis, T. Y. Differences in the search rate of children and adults in short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1977,23, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holyoak, K. J. The form of analog size information in memory.Cognitive Psychology, 1977,9, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holyoak, K. J., Dumais, S. T., &Mover, R. S. Semantic association effects in a mental comparison task.Memory & Cognition, 1979,7, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoving, K. L., Morin, R. E., &Konick, D. S. Recognition reaction time and size of the memory set: A developmental study.Psychonomic Science, 1970,21, 247–248.Google Scholar
  18. Jamieson, D. C., &Petrusic, W. M. Relational judgments with remembered stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics, 1975,18, 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keating, D. P., &.Bobbitt, B. L. Individual and developmental differences in cognitive-processing components of mental ability.Child Development, 1978,49, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maisto, A. A., &Baumeister, A. A. A developmental study of choice reaction time: The effect of two forms of stimulus degradation on encoding.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1975,20, 456–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Marschark, M., &Paivio, A. Semantic congruity and lexical marking in symbolic comparisons: An expectancy hypothesis.Memory & Cognition, 1979,7, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McFarland, C. E., Jr.,Duncan, E. M., &Kellas, G. Isolating the typicality effect in semantic memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1978,30, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, J. O., &Pachella, R. G. Locus of the stimulus probability effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,101, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, J. O., &Pachella, R. G. Encoding processes in memory scanning tasks.Memory & Cognition, 1976,4, 501–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moyer, R. S. Comparing objects in memory: Evidence suggesting an internal psychophysics.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973.13, 180–184.Google Scholar
  26. Moyer, R. S., &Bayer, R. H. Mental comparison and the symbolic distance effect.Cognitive Psychology, 1976,8, 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moyer, R. S., &Dumais, S. T. Mental comparison. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 12). New York: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  28. Moyer, R. S., &Landauer, T. K. The time required for judgments of numerical inequality.Nature (London), 1967,215, 1519–1520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Naus, M. J., &Ornsetin, P. A. Developmental differences in the memory search of categorized lists.Degelopmental Psychology, 1977,13, 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neely, J. H. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1977,106, 226–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pachella, R. G. The interpretation of reaction time in information-processing research. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. New York: Wiley, 1974.Google Scholar
  32. Parkman, J. M. Temporal aspects of digit and letter inequality judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,91, 191–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Piaget, J., &Inhelder, B.Mental imagery in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.Google Scholar
  34. Posner, M. I., &Snyder.R. R. Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Potomac, Md: Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar
  35. Rosch.E. Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975,104, 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sekuler, R., &Mierkiewicz, D. Children’s judgments of numerical inequality.Child Development, 1977,48, 630–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silverman, W. P. Complex visual discriminations in cultural familial retardates and normal children.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,103, 539–545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sternberg, S. Two operations in character recognition: Some evidence from reaction-time measurements.Perception & Psychophysics, 1967,2, 45–53.Google Scholar
  39. Sternberg, S. The discovery of processing stages: Extension of Donders’ method.Acta Psychologica, 1969,30, 276–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sternberg, S. Memory scanning: New findings and current controversies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1975,27, 1–32.Google Scholar
  41. Trabasso, T., Riley, C A., &Wilson, E. G. The representation of linear order and spatial strategies in reasoning: A developmental study. In R. Falmagne (Ed.),Psychological studies of logic and its development. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward M. Duncan
    • 1
  • Carl E. McFarland
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of New OrleansNew Orleans
  2. 2.University of AlabamaBirmingham

Personalised recommendations