
People constantly have to make efficient use of their limited cognitive resources. Recently, T. Mussweiler and K. Epstude (2009) demonstrated that comparative thinking simplifies information processing and increases the efficiency of judgment. However, there are different types of comparative thinking. While comparing 2 entities, people may focus on either similarities or dissimilarities between target and standard. The authors propose that these 2 comparative thinking styles differ in their efficiency. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that comparisons with a focus on similarities lead to more focused information processing and faster judgments than comparisons with a dissimilarity focus. In line with these hypotheses, the authors demonstrate that participants are indeed faster at judging the similarity of 2 stimuli (Study 1) and that they search for less target information in a comparative judgment task (Study 2) if they focus on similarities rather than dissimilarities. Focusing on similarities thus appears to be the more efficient comparative thinking style.
Male, Universities, ASSIMILATION, FEATURES, CONTRAST, comparisons, judgments, CONCEPTUAL COMBINATION, ACTIVATION, Thinking, Judgment, JUDGMENTS, Reaction Time, Humans, Students, similarity, COMMON, Analysis of Variance, comparative thinking styles, COMMONALITIES, REPRESENTATIONS, ALIGNMENT, Pattern Recognition, Visual, efficiency, Mental Recall, Female, Photic Stimulation
Male, Universities, ASSIMILATION, FEATURES, CONTRAST, comparisons, judgments, CONCEPTUAL COMBINATION, ACTIVATION, Thinking, Judgment, JUDGMENTS, Reaction Time, Humans, Students, similarity, COMMON, Analysis of Variance, comparative thinking styles, COMMONALITIES, REPRESENTATIONS, ALIGNMENT, Pattern Recognition, Visual, efficiency, Mental Recall, Female, Photic Stimulation
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 16 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
