Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

In similarity comparisons, people often show a preference for one direction over the other. Bowdle and Gentner (1997) proposed the base systematicity advantage account to explain this—namely, that people prefer similarity comparisons in which the more systematic item serves as the base. Results from a series of studies supported this account. However, the studies only covered literal similarity comparisons. The question of whether analogical comparison follows the base advantage pattern remained untested. Therefore, the present study investigated this question for analogical comparisons. We tested the prediction that a comparison will be preferred when the more systematic item serves as the base. This prediction was supported. We also found support for a further prediction: namely, that inferences were projected from the systematic to the less systematic passage. Further, these inferences spontaneously arose even when not requested. The overall results from these processes are consistent with the base systematicity advantage account.