Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Apr;53(3):775-791.
doi: 10.3758/s13421-024-01605-9. Epub 2024 Jul 11.

Surface matches prevail over distant analogs during retrieval

Affiliations

Surface matches prevail over distant analogs during retrieval

Ricardo A Minervino et al. Mem Cognit. 2025 Apr.

Abstract

Laboratory studies using a reception paradigm have found that memory items sharing similar entities and relations with a working memory cue (surface matches) are easier to retrieve than items sharing only a system of abstract relations (structural matches). However, the naturalistic approach has contended that the observed supremacy of superficial similarity could have originated in a shallow processing of somewhat inconsequential stories, as well as in the inadvertent inclusion of structural similarity during the construction of surface matches. We addressed the question of which kind of similarity dominates retrieval through a hybrid paradigm that combines the ecological validity of the naturalistic production paradigm with the experimental control of the reception paradigm. In Experiment 1 we presented participants with a target story that maintained either superficial or structural similarities with two popular movies that had received a careful processing prior to the experimental session. Experiment 2 replicated the same procedure with highly viralized public events. In line with traditional laboratory results, surface matches were significantly better retrieved than structural matches, confirming the supremacy of superficial similarities during retrieval.

Keywords: Analogy; Retrieval; Structural similarity; Superficial similarity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. Ethics approval: The methods have been approved by the ANPCyT and CONICET of Argentina. Consent to participate: All participants provided signed informed consent prior to participation in the study. Consent for publication: All authors consent to the publication of the study.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Baddeley, A. D., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2015). Memory. Psychology Press. - DOI
    1. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211580 - DOI
    1. Bukach, C. M., Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (2006). Beyond faces and modularity: The power of an expertise framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen, Z., Mo, L., & Honomichl, R. (2004). Having the memory of an elephant: Long-term retrieval and the use of analogues in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.415 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources