Abstract
Prior research indicates that people may base their causal explanations on distinctive features between an event and a contrasting background instance in which the event did not occur. Research on similarity judgments suggests that there are two types of distinctive features: alignable differences, which are corresponding characteristics of a pair, and nonalignable differences, which are characteristics of one item for which there are no corresponding characteristics in the other. In three experiments, the hypothesis that people’s evaluations of causal explanations vary as a function of feature alignment was examined. The results suggest that people will rate explanations differently on the basis of alignable or nonalignable differences, depending on the type of the event, and that alignability depends on the relational structure among the features of the event.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts.Memory & Cognition,10, 82–93.
Einhorn, H. J., &Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause.Psychological Bulletin,99, 3–19.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., &Gentner, D. (1989). The structuremapping engine: Algorithm and examples.Artificial Intelligence,41, 1–63.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science,7, 155–170.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity, analogy, and thought (pp. 199–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., &Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity.Psychological Science,5, 152–158.
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing groundwork.Cognition,52, 178–200.
Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., &Gentner, D. (1991). Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments.Cognitive Psychology,23, 222–262.
Hilton, D. J., &Slugoski, B. R. (1986). Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions focus model.Psychological Review,93, 75–78.
Hofstadter, D. R., &Mitchell, M. (1994). An overview of the Copycat project. In K. J. Holyoak & J. A. Barnden (Eds.),Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory: Vol. 2. Analogical connections (pp. 31–112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Holyoak, K. J., &Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction.Cognitive Science,13, 295–355.
Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation of preference reversals between separate and joint evaluation of alternatives.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,46, 247–257.
Hsee, C. K., Blount, S., Loewenstein, G. F., &Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis.Psychological Bulletin,125, 576–590.
Kahneman, D., &Miller, D. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives.Psychological Review,93, 136–153.
Keane, M. T. (1988). Analogical mechanisms.Artificial Intelligence,2, 19–23.
Lindemann, P. G., &Markman, A. B. (1996). Alignability and attribute importance in choice. In G. Cottrell (Ed.),Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 358–363). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993a). Splitting the difference: A structural alignment view of similarity.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 517–535.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,25, 431–467.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons.Memory & Cognition,24, 235–249.
Markman, A. B., &Medin, D. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,63, 117–130.
McGill, A. L. (1989). Context effects in judgments of causation.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,57, 189–200.
McGill, A. L. (1993). Selection of a causal background: Role of expectation versus feature mutability.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,67, 701–707.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity.Psychological Review,100, 254–278.
Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., &Buck, M. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained?Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,61, 5–12.
Nisbett, R. E., &Ross, L. D. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings in causal judgments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. M., &Gibson, B. D. (1991). The role of attribute knowledge and overall evaluation in comparative judgment.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,48, 131–146.
Slovic, P., &Macphillamy, D. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,11, 172–194.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Zhang, S., &Markman, A. B. (1998). Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences.Journal of Marketing Research,35, 413–426.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted by previous editorial team
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McGill, A.L. Alignable and nonalignable differences in causal explanations. Memory & Cognition 30, 456–468 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194946
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194946