Finding faults: analogical comparison supports spatial concept learning in geoscience

A central issue in education is how to support the spatial thinking involved in learning science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We investigated whether and how the cognitive process of analogical comparison supports learning of a basic spatial concept in geoscience, fault. Because of the high variability in the appearance of faults, it may be difficult for students to learn the category-relevant spatial structure. There is abundant evidence that comparing analogous examples can help students gain insight into important category-defining features (Gentner in Cogn Sci 34(5):752–775, 2010). Further, comparing high-similarity pairs can be especially effective at revealing key differences (Sagi et al. 2012). Across three experiments, we tested whether comparison of visually similar contrasting examples would help students learn the fault concept. Our main findings were that participants performed better at identifying faults when they (1) compared contrasting (fault/no fault) cases versus viewing each case separately (Experiment 1), (2) compared similar as opposed to dissimilar contrasting cases early in learning (Experiment 2), and (3) viewed a contrasting pair of schematic block diagrams as opposed to a single block diagram of a fault as part of an instructional text (Experiment 3). These results suggest that comparison of visually similar contrasting cases helped distinguish category-relevant from category-irrelevant features for participants. When such comparisons occurred early in learning, participants were more likely to form an accurate conceptual representation. Thus, analogical comparison of images may provide one powerful way to enhance spatial learning in geoscience and other STEM disciplines.     

More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: Children's performance on a causal-mapping task

Gentner (1988) has proposed a relational shift whereby children interpret analogy and metaphor first in terms of object similarity and then in terms of relational similarity. Goswami (1996) argues against the relational shift hypothesis, citing as evidence a study performed by Goswami and Brown (1989) in which 3-, 4-, and 6-year-old children were able to correctly complete pictorial A:B::C:? analogies based on familiar causal relations, and, contrary to the predictions of the relational shift hypothesis, made very few object-similarity errors despite the presence of an object-similarity choice. In the present experiment we obtained similarity ratings of Goswami and Brown's stimuli and found that the materials did not contain a true object similarity choice and therefore that study was not an adequate test of the relational shift hypothesis. After appropriate modifications to their methodology, we found that 4- and 5-year-old children's performance was consistent with the relational shift hypothesis: First, object-similarity errors were highly frequent initially and decreased with age; second, the rate of relational (correct) responding increased with age; and third, performance on the analogues was positively related to children's knowledge about the participating causal relations. We conclude by proposing an explanation for the relational shift based on an alignment view of similarity comparison and, further, suggest a new role for object similarity in children's analogical development.     

Relational categories are more mutable than entity categories

Across three experiments, we explore differences between relational categories—whose members share common relational patterns—and entity categories, whose members share common intrinsic properties. Specifically, we test the claim that relational concepts are more semantically mutable in context, and therefore less stable in memory, than entity concepts. We compared memory for entity nouns and relational nouns, tested either in the same context as at encoding or in a different context. We found that (a) participants show better recognition accuracy for entity nouns than for relational nouns, and (b) recognition of relational nouns is more impaired by a change in context than is recognition of entity nouns. We replicated these findings even when controlling for factors highly correlated with relationality, such as abstractness–concreteness. This suggests that the contextual mutability of relational concepts is due to the core semantic property of conveying relational structure and not simply to accompanying characteristics such as abstractness. We note parallels with the distinction between nouns and verbs and suggest implications for lexical and conceptual structure. Finally, we relate these patterns to proposals that a deep distinction exists between words with an essentially referential function and those with a predicate function.     

Auditory presentation leads to better analogical retrieval than written presentation

Research on analogical retrieval suggests that cues with object similarity to a prior episode in memory lead to better retrieval than do cues with relational similarity. We suggest that previous work may have underestimated the effectiveness of relational cues, because this work has presented cues and targets in written format. There is some evidence that spoken presentations lead to better memory than do written presentations. We tested this hypothesis using a continuous reminding paradigm in which people read and recalled proverbs that were presented either in spoken or written format. The spoken format led to better retrieval from relational cues, particularly at longer lags between cue and memory item.     

Informativity and Asymmetry in Comparisons

We propose an account of comparison asymmetries based on viewing comparison as a process of structural alignment and mapping. Specifically, we hypothesize that (1) comparison asymmetries result from directional differences in informativity, and that (2) asymmetries can therefore be predicted from the relative degree of systematicity or conceptual coherence of the items being compared. In Experiment 1, we found a clear preference for placing the more systematic of two passages in the base position of a comparison. Experiments 1 and 2 further showed that structural alignability is crucial in obtaining such asymmetries. In Experiment 3, we found that asymmetries are predicted by the relative systematicity of the comparisons items rather than by the relative size of the distinctive feature sets. These results are inconsistent with accounts of asymmetry based on feature contrast or stimulus bias. In Experiments 4 through 6, we tested the functional implications of our account by examining inference projection and perceived informativity across asymmetric comparisons. Critically, comparisons having the more systematic item as the base were more likely to result in inference projection and other forms of target modification and were rated as more informative than reverse comparisons. We conclude by demonstrating that this account can explain comparison asymmetries without positing underlying asymmetries in subjective similarity, and that it offers a unified approach to the directionality of literal comparisons, analogies, and metaphors.     

Relations, objects, and the composition of analogies

This research addresses the kinds of matching elements that determine analogical relatedness and literal similarity. Despite theoretical agreement on the importance of relational match, the empirical evidence is neither systematic nor definitive. In 3 studies, participants performed online evaluations of relatedness of sentence pairs that varied in either the object or relational match. Results show a consistent focus on relational matches as the main determinant of analogical acceptance. In addition, analogy does not require strict overall identity of relational concepts. Semantically overlapping but nonsynonymous relations were commonly accepted, but required more processing time. Finally, performance in a similarity rating task partly paralleled analogical acceptance; however, relatively more weight was given to object matches. Implications for psychological theories of analogy and similarity are addressed.     

Resistance is futile: The unwitting insertion of analogical inferences in memory

Analogical inferences can modify people’s understanding, but can this occur even when the inferences are unpalatable? We report two experiments suggesting that this is the case. Participants read a source passage on the role and status of gay people in society. Half then read an analogy describing the historical persecution of left-handers. On a subsequent recognition test, the participants who read the analogy were more likely than the control participants to misrecognize analogical inferences as statements explicitly presented, but the two groups did not differ in recognition rates for other kinds of statements. A priori explicit attitudes toward gays did not moderate these findings, although the participants with more positive attitudes toward gays saw the analogy to left-handers as more sound. Our findings demonstrate that analogical inferences can be seamlessly integrated into mental representations of the target domain even when those inferences are unpalatable; in short, resistance to analogy is futile.     

Relational language and the development of relational mapping

We test the claim that learning and using language for spatial relations can influence spatial representation and reasoning. Preschool children were given a mapping task in which they were asked to find a "winner" placed in a three-tiered box after seeing one placed in a virtually identical box. The correct choice was determined by finding the corresponding relative location in the test box, making it a difficult task for preschool children. We found that hearing language for spatial relations facilitated children's mapping performance. We found effects at younger ages on easier tasks (Experiments 1 and 2) and at older ages on harder tasks (Experiment 3). The effects of spatial relational language differed predictably according to the semantics of the terms children heard (Experiment 4). Finally, the effects of spatial language were maintained over time (Experiment 5): children given one initial exposure to the spatial terms maintained their advantage over baseline children when they again carried out the mapping task 2 days later, with no further exposure to the spatial terms. The evidence is consistent with the explanation that language bolsters children's spatial encodings, which in turn supports their mapping performance.     

STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT IN COMPARISON:

Abstract— Theories of similarity generally agree that the similarity of a pair increases with its commonalities and decreases with its differences. Recent research suggests that this comparison process involves an alignment of structured representations yielding commonalities, differences related to the commonalities, and differences unrelated to the commonalities. One counterintuitive prediction of this view is that it should be easier to find the differences between pairs of similar items than to find the differences between pairs of dissimilar items. This prediction is particularly strong for differences that are related to the commonalities. We tested this prediction in two experiments in which subjects listed a single difference for each of a number of word pairs. The results are consistent with the predictions of structural alignment. In light of these findings, we discuss the potential role of structural alignment in other cognitive processes that involve comparisons.