We present two experiments assessing whether the size of a transformation instantiating a relation between two states of the world (e.g., shrinks) is a performance factor affecting analogical reasoning. The first experiment finds evidence of transformation size as a significant factor in adolescent analogical problem solving while the second experiment finds a similar effect on adult analogical reasoning using a markedly different analogical completion paradigm. The results are interpreted as providing evidence for the more general framework that cognitive representations of relations are best understood as mental transformations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlanchetteI.DunbarK. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity.Memory & Cognition28, 108–124.
2.
BlanchetteI.DunbarK. (2001). Analogy use in naturalistic settings: The influence of audience, emotion, and goals.Memory & Cognition29, 730–735.
3.
DavidsonD. (1967). The logical form of action sentences.The logic of decision and action. RescherN.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press81–95.
4.
GentnerD. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science7, 155–170.
5.
GickM. L.HolyoakK. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving.Cognitive Psychology12, 306–355.
6.
GickM. L.HolyoakK. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer.Cognitive Psychology15, 1–38.
7.
GoswamiU. (1991). Analogical reasoning: What develops? A review of research and theory.Child Development62, 1–22.
8.
HahnU.ChaterN.RichardsonL. B. C. (2003). Similarity as transformation.Cognition87, 1–32.
9.
HofstadterD. R. (1995). the Fluid Analogies Research Group.Fluid concepts and creative analogiesNew York: Basic Books.
10.
HolyoakK. J.GentnerD.KokinovB. N. (2001). The place of analogy in cognition.The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. GentnerD.HolyoakK. J.KokinovB. N.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
HowellD. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology. (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
12.
HummelJ. E.HolyoakK. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping.Psychological Review104, 427–466.
13.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). Solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge.Psychological Review104, 211–240.
14.
LarkeyL. B.MarkmanA. B. (2005). Processes of similarity judgment.Cognitive Science29, 1061–1076.
15.
LeechR.MareschalD.CooperR. P.A connectionist account of analogical developmentProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. AltmanR.KirschD.Hove, UK: Psychology Press Ltd2003710–715.
16.
LeechR.MareschalD.CooperR. P. (2007). Analogy as relational priming: A developmental and computational perspective on the origins of a complex cognitive skill Manuscript submitted for publication.
17.
NovickL. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition14, 510–520.
18.
RogersT. T.McClellandJ. L. (2004). Semantic cognitionCambridge, MA: MIT Books.
19.
RumelhartD. E.ToddP. M. (1993). Learning and connectionist representations.Attention and Performance: XIV. Synergies in experimental psychology, artifical intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience. MeyerD. E.KornblumS.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press3–30.
20.
ThomasM. S. C.MareschalD.Connectionism and psychological notions of similarityProceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. ShaftoM. G.LangleyP.Hove, UK: Psychology Press Ltd1997757–762.
21.
ThomasM. S. C.MareschalD. (2001). Metaphor as categorisation: A connectionist implementation.Metaphor and Symbol16, 5–27.
