Similarity judgments predict N400 amplitude differences between taxonomic category members and thematic associates

Human similarity judgments do not reliably conform to the predictions of leading theories of psychological similarity. Evidence from the triad similarity judgment task shows that people often identify thematic associates like DOG and BONE as more similar than taxonomic category members like DOG and CAT, even though thematic associates lack the type of featural or relational similarity that is foundational to theories of psychological similarity. This specific failure to predict human behavior has been addressed as a consequence of education and other individual differences, an artifact of the triad similarity judgment paradigm, or a shortcoming in psychological accounts of similarity. We investigated the judged similarity of semantically-related concepts (taxonomic category members and thematic associates) as it relates to other task-independent measures of semantic knowledge and access. Participants were assessed on reading and language ability, then event-related potentials (ERPs) were collected during a passive, sequential word reading task that presented pseudowords and taxonomically-related, thematically-related, and unrelated word sequences, and, finally, similarity judgments were collected with the classic two-alternative forced-choice triad task. The results uncovered a correspondence between ERP amplitude and triad-based similarity judgments-similarity judgment behavior reliably predicts ERP amplitude during passive word reading, absent of any instruction to consider similarity. It was also found that individual differences in reading and language ability independently predicted ERP amplitude. This evidence suggests that similarity judgments are driven by reliable patterns of thought that are not solely rooted in the interpretation of task goals or reading and language ability.