Explicit similarity judgments tend to emphasize relational information more than do difference judgments. In this talk, I propose and test the hypothesis that this asymmetry arises because human reasoners represent the relation different as the negation of the relation same (i.e., as not-same). This proposal implies that processing difference is more cognitively demanding than processing similarity. Both for verbal comparisons between word pairs, and for visual comparisons between sets of geometric shapes, participants completed a triad task in which they selected which of two options was either more similar to or more different from a standard. On unambiguous trials, one option was unambiguously more similar to the standard, either by virtue of featural similarity or by virtue of relational similarity. On ambiguous trials, one option was more featurally similar (but less relationally similar) to the standard, whereas the other was more relationally similar (but less featurally similar). Given the higher cognitive complexity of assessing relational similarity, we predicted that detecting relational difference would be particularly demanding. We found that participants (1) had more difficulty accurately detecting relational difference than they did relational similarity on unambiguous trials, and (2) tended to emphasize relational information more when judging similarity than when judging difference on ambiguous trials. The latter finding was captured by a computational model of comparison that weights relational information more heavily for similarity than for difference judgments. These results provide convergent evidence for a representational asymmetry between the relations same and different.

Visual comparisons are ubiquitous, and they can also be an important source for learning (e.g., Gentner et al., 2016; Kok et al., 2013). In science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), key information is often conveyed through figures, graphs, and diagrams (Mayer, 1993). Comparing within and across visuals is critical for gleaning insight into the underlying concepts, structures, and processes that they represent. This talk addresses how people make visual comparisons and how visual comparisons can be best supported to improve learning. In particular, the talk will present a series of studies exploring the Spatial Alignment Principle (Matlen et al., 2020), derived from Structure-Mapping Theory (Gentner, 1983). Structure-mapping theory proposes that comparisons involve a process of finding correspondences between elements based on structured relationships. The Spatial Alignment Principle suggests that spatially arranging compared figures directly – to support correct correspondences and minimize interference from incorrect correspondences – will facilitate visual comparisons. We find that direct placement can facilitate visual comparison in educationally relevant stimuli, and that it may be especially important when figures are less familiar. We also present complementary evidence illustrating the preponderance of visual comparisons in 7th grade science textbooks.