Global Processing Styles Facilitate the Discovery of Structural Similarity

Abstract

This study examined whether global processing style facilitates the discovery of structural similarity. In the two experiments, the participants were presented with three stories after being primed with global or local processing through a Navon task. The first story was the base story, and the other two stories shared either surface similarity or structural similarity with the base story. The results showed that, compared with the participants of the local processing and control groups, a substantially greater number of participants of the global processing group selected the story with structural similarity to the base story. This finding indicated that the global processing style can facilitate the discovery of structural similarity.

Keywords

Processing style surface similarity structural similarity analogy similarity

Introduction

It has been found that people have dissimilar preference toward visual stimuli. For example, when presented with an identical image of a mountain range, some people tend to focus on appreciation of the overall scenery, such as the curves created by the rolling mountains or the way the mountains and rivers connect to each other, while others may concentrate more on detailed characteristics of the view (e.g., trees, stones, flowers, and birds). Research has indicated that cognitive attention to global or local features of a stimulus can lead to certain global and local processing styles, respectively. When global processing is activated, people tend to focus on the holistic structure of the stimulus, thereby activating broader semantic connections between existing concepts and the stimulus and integrating the newly acquired information into the existing knowledge structure. However, when local processing is activated, people have a tendency to concentrate on detailed features of the stimulus, thereby reducing the activated semantic connections between concepts and excluding the newly acquired information from the existing knowledge structure (e.g., Anderson & Spellman, 1995; Burgoon, Henderson, & Markman, 2013; Derryberry & Tucker, 1994; Henderson, 2013).

Studies have also shown that both global processing and local processing have different effects on individual cognitive processing. Compared with local processing, global processing is more closely associated with creative thinking, better decision quality, good interpersonal communication, and prosocial behavior (Dijkstra, Pligt, & Kleef, 2014; Mukherjee, Srinivasan, & Manjaly, 2014; Woltin, Corneille, & Yzerbyt, 2012; Zhong, Dijksterhuis, & Galinsky, 2008). Thus, in addition to the listed variables, it was important to explore if global processing and local processing result in differences in the judgment of similarity.

Similarity is critical in categorization, problem-solving, understanding of metaphors, reasoning, and decision-making (e.g., Chen, 2002; Gentner, 2001; Gentner & Namy, 2000). Gentner and colleagues believe that the two forms of relations included first-order relations and higher order relations (Gentner, 1989; Gentner & Markman, 1997; Gentner, Ratterman, & Forbus, 1993). First-order relations refer to the relationships between objects (e.g., X is attached to Y), and higher order relations are related to the relationships between first-order relations (relations between relations). In the case of surface similarity, the two stories share object attributes (e.g., characters, places, physical objects, and other nouns) and first-order relations; In case of structural similarity, the two stories share first-order relations and higher order relations (e.g., causal relations), but the object attributes differed (e.g., Gentner & Markman, 1997; Gentner et al., 1993). In contrast to surface similarities, finding structural similarities is at the foundation of research on similarity (Gentner & Markman, 1997). However, the question surrounding whether global processing is conducive to the discovery of structural similarities remains unresolved.

Research in the field of human perception has suggested that individuals with a global processing style tend to find structural relations between stimuli (Love, Rouder, & Wisniewski, 1999). In the experiment conducted by Love et al. (1999), the participants were presented with two 3 × 3 matrices, each composed of a column of three circles, a column of three triangles, and a column of three squares. On the global level, the two matrices looked similar (the nine shapes of each matrix were arranged in the same spatial structure); however, differences could be found on a local level (the position of each shape-column within the matrix was different). The participants’ task was to determine whether the two matrices were the “same” or “different.” The results revealed that participants with activated global processing tended to consider the two matrices as being “the same.”

What is more important, research has found that global processing was able to activate abstract and superordinate concepts, while the activation of superordinate concepts in the semantic network is closely related to structural features (e.g., Barsalou, 1999; Derryberry & Tucker, 1994; Guest, Gibbert, Estes, Mazursky, & Lam, 2016). Therefore, this study hypothesized that global processing style facilitates the discovery of structural similarity.

Experiment 1

In Experiment 1, a Navon task was adopted to activate participants’ global and local processing. Studies have shown that the Navon task of large-letter identification at the perceptual level can activate superordinate concepts and their contiguous concepts in the semantic network, thus initiating global processing. Contrastingly, the Navon task of small-letter identification at the perceptual level will activate subordinate concepts and their contiguous concepts in the semantic network, thus initiating local processing (e.g., Macrae & Lewis, 2002; Navon, 1977). All participants were subsequently presented with three stories: the first story was the base story (Story 1); the other two stories shared either surface similarity (Story 2) or structural similarity (Story 3) with the base story. The participants were required to identify, between Story 2 and Story 3, the story that was closer to Story 1. If a global processing style is beneficial to the discovery of structural similarity, then compared with the participants who were primed with local processing, the participants who were primed with global processing should be more likely to identify Story 3.

Method

Participants and design

One hundred Chinese students (41 men and 59 women; mean age = 21.53 years, SD = 1.20) participated in the experiment. All participants were Han Chinese university students recruited on campus. The participants were randomly assigned to either the global processing group (19 men and 31 women) or the local processing group (22 men and 28 women). Upon completion of the experiment, each participant was rewarded with 10 RMB.

Materials and procedure

The three stories utilized in this study were developed by Gentner et al. (1993). The details of the stories are listed in Table 1. Story 1 was the base story. Story 2 shared surface similarity with Story 1, in that both stories had the same objective attributes and first-order relations. Story 3 and Story 1 shared structural similarity, in that both stories had the same first-order and higher order relations, but they differed in terms of objective attributes.

Table 1.

Three stories in Experiment 1.

Base story

A farmer named Jungao had a choice apricot tree that he valued above all the rest in his garden. Every year Jungao gave presents of fruit from this tree to everyone he knew. But one year the tree began to wither and there was no more of the wonderful fruit. Everyone was very unhappy. The judge had enjoyed the apricots from the tree very much–so much so that he resolved to take the tree to his own garden to take care of it. He paid Jungao very well and had the tree moved to his own grounds. Fortunately, as soon as it was transplanted, the tree bore delicious apricots again. That very year, the fruit won first prize in the county fair.

Surface-structure similarity

A grower, Mr Li, had many grapevines in his vineyard, but there was one that he valued above all the rest. Occasionally, Mr Li presented grapes from this vine as gifts to his friends. The mayor liked the grapes from this vine so well that one autumn he decided he wanted the vine in his own yard where he could enjoy them every day. He paid Mr Li very well and had the vine moved to his estate.

Deep-structure similarity

Mr Zhang had several pets, but he valued the canary above all the rest. Occasionally, he invited friends over to hear the canary sing. However, one autumn the canary became very ill, and there were no more of its beautiful songs. Everyone was extremely disappointed. A veterinarian friend had liked the canary’s songs so much that he decided he would buy the canary and put it in his office where he could look after it. He paid Mr Zhang very well. Upon being moved, the canary sang beautiful songs again.

Note: These stories were developed by Gentner et al. (1993).

To ensure that participants understood the concepts of surface and structural similarity, definitions and tangible examples of surface and structural similarity were provided prior to testing. During the formal experiment, the participants were first asked to complete the Navon task (Navon, 1977). In this task, participants were presented with a composite stimulus consisting of a large letter composed of numerous small letters. Participants were asked to identify the small letters while ignoring the large letter or to identify the large letter while ignoring the small letters. A 500 milliseconds fixation cross (“+”) was first presented in the middle of the screen, followed by the hierarchical letters. In the large-letter task, participants were required to identify whether the large letter consisting of small letters was H or L. In the small-letter task, participants were asked to identify whether the small letters consisting of big letters were H or L. The large-letter and small-letter tasks each included 160 trials. After the Navon task, the participants were presented with Story 2 and Story 3 individually. Each story was presented for 50 seconds. For half of the participants, Story 2 was presented first, followed by Story 3, whereas the other half of the participants was presented with Story 3 first, followed by Story 2. Next, Story 1 was presented to all participants for 60 seconds. When all three stories were presented, the participants were asked to identify, between Story 2 and Story 3, the story that was more structural similar to Story 1. Following the conclusion of the experiment, participants were asked if they had previously encountered the three stories; all reported that these stories were unfamiliar.

Results

To ensure the effectiveness of priming, we first calculated the accuracy rate and response time of the participants in the large-letter and small-letter Navon tasks. The accuracy rates of the participants in the large-letter task and the small-letter task were 93.79% and 95.58%, respectively. The response time in the large-letter task (M = 513.99 and SD = 74.34) was significantly shorter than in the small-letter task (M = 591.47 and SD = 65.03); t(98) = 5.14 and p < .01. This indicated that all the participants had completed the Navon task conscientiously.

The number of participants who selected Story 2 and Story 3 was calculated (Table 2). A 2 (processing styles) × 2 (similarity) logarithmic linear model analysis was subsequently applied to analyze the compiled data. The results showed that the interactive effect of processing style and similarity was significant, χ²(2, N = 100) = 9.47, p < .01.

Table 2.

Number and percentage of participants by choice of story by group in Experiment 1.

	Deep structure	Surface structure
Global	74.00%(37/50)	26.00%(13/50)
Local	44.00%(22/50)	56.00%(28/50)

A follow-up analysis found that, in the global processing group, the number of the participants who chose Story 3 was significantly higher than that of the participants who chose Story 2, χ²(1, N = 50) = 11.52, p < .01. However, no noticeable differences were found between the number of participants who selected Story 2 and Story 3 in the local processing group, χ²(1, N = 50) = .72, p > . 05. The results showed that global processing style is conducive to the discovery of structural similarity between objects.

Experiment 2

The main purpose of Experiment 2 was to replicate the results of Experiment 1. In addition, a control group (without priming any processing style) was added to explore whether or not the findings in Experiment 1 could be attributed to global processing style in the discovery of structural similarity, or whether it was due to the inhibition of the discovery of structural similarity caused by local processing style. If global processing style facilitates the discovery of structural similarity, then compared with the participants of the control group, the participants of the global processing group should be more likely to choose structure similarity story.

Method

Participants and design

One hundred and ninety-eight Chinese students (81 males and 117 females; mean age = 22.45 years, SD = 1.23) participated in the experiment, all of whom were randomly assigned to the global processing group (26 males and 40 females), local processing group (30 males and 36 females), or the control group (25 males and 41 females). All participants were Han Chinese university students recruited on campus. Each participant was rewarded with 10 RMB upon completion of the experiment.

Materials and procedure

Three new stories, also developed by Gentner et al. (1993), were chosen for the present study. Relevant details have been listed in Table 3. Story 1 was the base story, Story 2 shared surface similarity with Story 1, and Story 3 shared structural similarity with Story 1.

Table 3.

Three stories in Experiment 2.

Base story

Karla, an old hawk, lived at the top of a tall oak tree. One afternoon, she saw a hunter on the ground with a bow and some crude arrows that had no feathers. The hunter took aim and shot at the hawk but missed. Karla knew the hunter wanted her feathers so she glided down to the hunter and offered to give him a few. The hunter was so grateful that he pledged never to shoot at a hawk again. He went off and shot deer instead.

Surface-structure similarity

Once there was an eagle named Zerdia who donated a few of her tailfeathers to a sportsman, and he promised never to attack eagles. One day Zerdia was nesting high on a rocky cliff when she saw the sportsman coming with a crossbow. Zerdia flew down to meet the man, but he attacked and felled her with a single bolt. As she fluttered to the ground, Zerdia realized that the bolt had her own tailfeathers on it.

Deep-structure similarity

Once there was a small country called Bildo that learned to make the world’s smartest computer. One day Bildo was attacked by its warlike neighbor, Gagrach. But the missiles were badly aimed and the attack failed. The Bildon government realized that Gagrach wanted Bildon computers so it offered to sell some of its computers to the country. The government of Gagrach was very pleased. It promised never to attack Bildo again.

Note: These stories were also developed by Gentner et al. (1993).

In addition, a control group was added to Experiment 2. Participants of the control group did not have to participate in the Navon task but rather were directly presented with the stories in the manner as described in Experiment 1. The rest of the procedures was the same as those described in Experiment 1.

Results

As in Experiment 1, we first calculated the accuracy rate and response time of the participants in the large-letter and small-letter tasks. The accuracy rates of the participants in the large-letter task and the small-letter task were 93.79% and 95.58%, respectively. The response time of the participants in the large-letter task (M = 494.65 and SD = 63.27) was significantly shorter than in the small-letter task (M = 590.62 and SD = 83.64); t(130) = 7.43 and p < .01. This indicated that all the participants had completed the Navon task conscientiously.

The number of participants from each group who selected Story 2 and Story 3 was calculated individually (Table 4). The 3 (processing styles) × 2 (similarity) logarithmic linear model analysis showed that interaction of processing style and similarity was significant, χ²(2, N = 198) = 8.97, p < .05.

Table 4.

Number and percentage of participants by choice of story by group in Experiment 2.

	Deep structure	Surface structure
Global	68.18%(45/66)	31.82%(21/66)
Control	48.48%(32/66)	51.52%(34/66)
Local	43.94%(29/66)	56.06%(37/66)

A follow-up analysis revealed that, in the global processing group, the number of participants who selected Story 3 was much greater than that of the participants who selected Story 2, χ²(1, N = 66) = 8.73, p < .01. However, in the local processing group, the number of participants who selected Story 2 and Story 3 was not significantly different, χ²(1, N = 66) = .97, p = .33. These findings confirmed the results of Experiment 1. In addition, no apparent differences were found between the number of participants who selected Story 2 and Story 3 in the control group, χ²(1, N = 60) = .06, p = .81. The results supported the hypothesis that global processing style facilitates the discovery of structural similarity.

General discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore whether global processing style can promote the discovery of structural similarity. In Experiment 1, the proportion of participants who chose Story 2 (surface similarity) and Story 3 (structural similarity) in both the global and local processing groups was compared. The findings showed that, in the global processing group, the number of participants who chose Story 3 (structural similarity) was significantly greater than that of participants who chose Story 2 (surface similarity). In Experiment 2, a control group was introduced. The findings of Experiment 2 further revealed that the results of Experiment 1 were caused by global processing style, which assisted in promoting the discovery of structural similarity.

This study provided new evidence for the impact of global processing style on individuals’ cognitive processing. Previous studies suggested that, compared with local processing, global processing is more closely related to creative thinking, better decision quality, good interpersonal communication, and prosocial behavior (Dijkstra et al., 2014; Mukherjee et al., 2014; Woltin et al., 2012; Zhong et al., 2008). This study demonstrated that global processing style is also beneficial to the discovery of structural similarity.

This study supported the viewpoint that global processing is a construal or meaning-making process. Studies have shown that global processing style focuses on processing information at the abstract or meaning level (e.g., Darwent, Fujita, & Wakslak, 2010; Förster & Dannenberg, 2010). Guest et al. (2016) found that compared with the local processing style, global processing style was more inclined to discover thematic relations than taxonomic similarity. They believed that compared with taxonomic similarity, the discovery of thematic relation was more dependent on processing the meaningful relationship of objects at the global level. This study found that global processing was conductive to the discovery of deep structural similarity, which further supported the view that global processing style was used for processing abstract or meaning.

A limitation of this study is that only two sets of stories were used across the two experiments. The results of this study could have been biased owing to participants’ preferences for story content due to the limited selection of material. Therefore, in future studies, stories from a range of genres should be used to further determine if global processing indeed facilitates the detection of structural similarity.

In both experiments, Story 2 shared surface similarity with the base story (Story 1) and Story 3 shared structural similarity with the base story. This study only selected typical stories that showed surface similarity and structural similarity with the base story; it did not particularly differentiate the degrees of similarity. Future studies should select multiple stories with different degrees of similarity to further reveal the precise relationship between global processing style and the degree of similarity.

Future studies are suggested to examine the reliability of the results of this study by applying other types of global processing activation tasks. In this study, a Navon task was employed to induce global and local processing. Research has found that many factors, including color, emotion, approach and avoidance cues, power, and novelty, may also induce global and local processing (e.g., Mehta & Zhu, 2009; Moskowitz & Ignarri, 2009; Ray & Zald, 2012; Smith & Trope, 2006). Hence, future studies are suggested to adopt tasks related to the aforementioned factors to verify the findings of this study.

In addition, future studies could examine whether individuals with a holistic thinking style have a tendency to identify structural similarity. This study utilized a Navon task to activate participants’ global processing and discovered that global processing style can promote the discovery of structural similarity. Compared with individuals with an analytical thinking style, individuals with a holistic thinking style are more likely to apply a global processing style to process information (Riding, 1997; Riding & Cheema, 1991). Based on the findings of this study, it is probable that individuals with a holistic thinking style are more likely to identify structural similarity. However, further experimental evidence is needed to support this assumption.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Professor Dedre Gentner of Northwestern University for providing experimental materials.

Article Notes

References

Anderson

M. C.

Spellman

B. A.

(1995) On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case. Psychological Review 102: 68–100.

Barsalou

L. W.

(1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–660.

Burgoon

E. M.

Henderson

M. D.

Markman

A. B.

(2013) There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8: 501–520.

Chen

(2002) Analogical problem solving: A hierarchical analysis of procedural similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 28: 81–98.

Darwent

K. M.

Fujita

Wakslak

C. J.

(2010) On the role of abstraction in global and local processing phenomena. Psychological Inquiry 21: 198–202.

Derryberry

Tucker

D. M.

(1994) Motivating the focus of attention. In: Niedenthal

P. M.

Kitayama

(eds) Heart’s eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention, New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 167–196.

Dijkstra

K. A.

van der Pligt

van Kleef

G. A.

(2014) Effects of processing style on responsiveness to affective stimuli and processing fluency. Cognition and Emotion 28: 959–970.

Förster

Dannenberg

(2010) GLOMO^sys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry 21: 175–197.

Gentner

(1989) The mechanisms of analogical learning. In: Vosniadou

Ortony

(eds) Similarity and analogical reasoning, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–241.

10.

Gentner

(2001) Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of difference. Memory and Cognition 29: 565–577.

11.

Gentner

Markman

A. B.

(1997) Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52: 45–56.

12.

Gentner

Namy

L. L.

(2000) Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development 14: 487–513.

13.

Gentner

Ratterman

M. J.

Forbus

K. D.

(1993) The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25: 524–575.

14.

Guest

Gibbert

Estes

Mazursky

Lam

(2016) Modulation of taxonomic (versus thematic) similarity judgments and product choices by inducing local and global processing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 28: 1013–1025.

15.

Henderson

M. D.

(2013) When seeing the forest reduces the need for trees: The effect of abstraction on attraction to choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49: 676–683.

16.

Love

B. C.

Rouder

J. N.

Wisniewski

E. J.

(1999) A structural account of global and local processing. Cognitive Psychology 38: 291–316.

17.

Macrae

C. N.

Lewis

H. L.

(2002) Do I know you? Processing orientation and face recognition. Psychological Science 13: 194–196.

18.

Mehta

Zhu

(2009) Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances. Science 323: 1226–1229.

19.

Moskowitz

G. B.

Ignarri

(2009) Implicit volition and stereotype control. European Review of Social Psychology 20: 97–145.

20.

Mukherjee

Srinivasan

Manjaly

J. A.

(2014) Global processing fosters donations toward charity appeals framed in an approach orientation. Cognitive Processing 15: 391–396.

21.

Navon

(1977) Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology 9: 353–383.

22.

Ray

R. D.

Zald

D. H.

(2012) Anatomical insights into the interaction of emotion and cognition in the prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 36: 479–501.

23.

Riding

R. J.

(1997) On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology 17: 29.

24.

Riding

R. J.

Cheema

(1991) Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology 11: 193–215.

25.

Smith

P. K.

Trope

(2006) You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 578–596.

26.

Woltin

K. A.

Corneille

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2012) Improving communicative understanding: The benefits of global processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48: 1179–1182.

27.

Zhong

C. B.

Dijksterhuis

Galinsky

A. D.

(2008) The merits of unconscious thought in creativity. Psychological Science 19: 912–918.