Analogical Processes in Human Thinking and Learning

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the On Thinking book series (ONTHINKING)

Abstract

Much of humankind’s remarkable mental aptitude can be attributed to analogical ability - the ability to perceive and use relational similarity. In this chapter, we present an overview of analogy and describe its component processes, including structural alignment and inference projection, evaluation, schema abstraction and re-representation. We discuss how these component processes lead to learning and the generation of new knowledge, and review evidence that suggests that greater use of analogy during learning can improve relational retrieval and transfer.

Keywords

Relational Structure Structural Alignment Alignment Process Object Match Progressive Alignment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by ONR Grant N00014-08-1-0040. Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to gentner@northwestern.edu or Dedre Gentner, Psychology Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208.

References

  1. Bowdle B, Gentner D (1997) Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons. Cogn Psychol 34(3):244-286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Clement J (1988) Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cogn Sci 12(4):563-586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clement CA, Gentner D (1991) Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cogn Sci 15(1):89-132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeLoache JS (1987) Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. Science 238:1556-1557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Falkenhainer B, Forbus KD, Gentner D (1989) The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artif Intell 41:1-63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forbus KD, Gentner D, Law K (1995) MAC/FAC: a model of similarity-based retrieval. Cogn Sci 19:141-205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forbus K, Gentner D, Everett J, Wu M (1997) Towards a computational model of evaluating and using analogical inferences. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. LEA, Inc., NJ, London, pp 229-234Google Scholar
  8. Gentner D (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn Sci 7:155-70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gentner D (1989) The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou, A. Ortony (eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. London: Cambridge University Press, pp 199-241 (Reprinted in knowledge acquisition and learning, 1993, 673-694).Google Scholar
  10. Gentner D (2003) Why we’re so smart. In: Gentner D, Goldin-Meadow S (eds) Language in mind: advances in the study of language and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 195-236Google Scholar
  11. Gentner D (2005) The development of relational category knowledge. In: Gershkoff-Stowe L, Rakison DH (eds) Building object categories in developmental time. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 245-275Google Scholar
  12. Gentner D, Christie S (2008) Relational language supports relational cognition in humans and apes. Behav Brain Sci 31:136-137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gentner D, Markman AB (1995) Similarity is like analogy: structural alignment in comparison. In: Cacciari C (ed) Similarity in language, thought and perception. Brepols, Brussels, pp 111-147Google Scholar
  14. Gentner D, Markman AB (1997) Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. Am Psychol 52:45-56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gentner D, Medina J (1998) Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition 65:263-297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentner D, Rattermann MJ (1991) Language and the career of similarity. In: Gelman SA, Brynes JP (eds) Perspectives on thought and language: Interrelations in development. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 225-277Google Scholar
  17. Gentner D, Toupin C (1986) Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cogn Sci 10(3):277-300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gentner D, Wolff P (1997) Alignment in the processing of metaphor. J Mem Lang 37:331-355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gentner D, Rattermann MJ, Forbus KD (1993) The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cogn Psychol 25:524-575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gentner D, Loewenstein J, Thompson L (2003) Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. J Educ Psychol 95(2):393-408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gentner D. Loewenstein J, Thompson L, Forbus K (in press) Reviving inert Knowledge: Analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cogn SciGoogle Scholar
  22. Gick ML, Holyoak KJ (1980) Analogical problem solving. Cogn Psychol 12:306-355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gick ML, Holyoak KJ (1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cogn Psychol 15:1-38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glucksberg S, McGlone MS, Manfredi DA (1997) Metaphor comprehension: how metaphors create new categories. In: Ward T, Smith S, Vaid J (eds) Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes. APA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldstone, Day and Son, (2009) Comparison. -- this volume Google Scholar
  26. Goldstone RL, Medin DL, Gentner D (1991) Relational similarity and the non-independence of features in similarity judgments. Cogn Psychol 23:222-264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Greiner R (1988) Learning by understanding analogies. Artif Intell 35:81-125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heit E, Rubinstein J (1994) Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 20:411-422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Holyoak KJ, Koh K (1987) Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Mem Cogn 15:323-340Google Scholar
  30. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P (1989) Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cogn Sci 13:295-355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holyoak KJ, Novick LR, Melz ER (1994) Component processes in analogical transfer: Mapping, pattern completion, and adaptation. In: Holyoak KJ, Barnden JA (eds) Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory, Analogical connections, vol 2. Norwood, NJ Ablex, pp. 113-180Google Scholar
  32. Hummel JE, Holyoak KJ (1997) Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychol Rev 104:427-466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keane MT (1988) Analogical problem solving. Chichester, W. Sussex, England: E. Horwood. Halsted Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Keane MT (1996) On adaptation in analogy: tests of pragmatic importance and adaptability in analogical problem solving. Q J Exp Psychol 49/A(4):1062-1085Google Scholar
  35. Kotovsky L, Gentner D (1996) Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Dev 67:2797-2822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuehne SE, Forbus KD, Gentner D, Quinn B (2000a) SEQL - Category learning as progressive abstraction using structure mapping. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Philadelphia, PA, pp 770-775Google Scholar
  37. Kuehne SE, Gentner D Forbus KD (2000b) Modeling infant learning via symbolic structural alignment. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Philadelphia, PA, pp 286-291Google Scholar
  38. Kurtz KJ, Gentner D, Gunn V (1999) Reasoning. In: Rumelhart DE, Bly BM (eds) Cognitive science: handbook of perception and cognition, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 145-200Google Scholar
  39. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  40. Loewenstein J, Gentner D (2001) Spatial mapping in preschoolers: close comparisons facilitate far mappings. J Cogn Dev 2(2):189-219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marcus GF, Vijayan S, Bandi Rao S, Vishton PM (1999) Rule-learning in seven-month-old infants. Science 283:77-80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Markman AB (1997) Constraints on analogical inference. Cogn Sci 21(4):373-418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markman AB (1999) Knowledge representation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  44. Markman AB, Gentner D (1993a) All differences are not created equal: a structural alignment view of similarity. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Boulder, CO, pp 682-686Google Scholar
  45. Markman AB, Gentner D (1993b) Splitting the differences: a structural alignment view of similarity. J Mem Lang 32:517-535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Markman AB, Gentner D (1993c) Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cogn Psychol 25:431-467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Medin DL, Goldstone RL, Gentner D (1993) Respects for similarity. Psychol Rev 100(2):254-278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Novick LR (1988a) Analogical transfer: processes and individual differences. In: Helman DH (ed) Analogical reasoning: perspectives of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 125-145Google Scholar
  49. Novick LR (1988b) Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 14:510-520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ortony A (1979) Beyond literal similarity. Psychol Rev 86:161-180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paik JH, Mix KS (2006) Preschoolers’ similarity judgments: Taking context into account. J Exp Child Psychol 95:194-214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Penn DC, Holyoak KJ, Povinelli DJ (2008) Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Brain Behav Sci 31:109-178Google Scholar
  53. Reed SK (1987) A structure-mapping model for word problems. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13:124-139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ross BH (1984) Remindings and their effects in learning a cognitive skill. Cogn Psychol 16:371-416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ross BH (1987) This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13(4):629-639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ross BH (1989) Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. J Exp Psycho Learn Mem Cogn 15(3):456-468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Seidenberg MS, Elman J (1999) Do infants learn grammar with algebra or statistics? Lett Sci 284:434-436Google Scholar
  58. Shepard RN (1962) The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function, I. Psychmetrika 27(2):125-140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tversky A (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 84(4):327-352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolff P, Gentner D (2000) Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 26:529-541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolff P, Gentner, D. (under review) Structure-mapping in metaphor: evidence for a multi-stage model of metaphor processing. Cogn SciGoogle Scholar
  62. Yan J, Forbus K, Gentner, D (2003) A theory of rerepresentation in analogical matching. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (eds) Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston MA, pp 1265-1270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations