 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Structure-mapping theory is a theory of analogical reasoning, developed by Dedre Gentner, [1] and for which she was awarded the 2016 David E. Rumelhart Prize for Contributions to the Theoretical Foundations of Human Cognition. [2]
Structure-mapping theory aims to improve upon previous theories of analogy, by distinguishing analogy from literal similarity. Previous theories, like Amos Tversky's contrast theory, assumed that an analogy is stronger, the more attributes the base and target have in common. Instead, structure-mapping theory recognizes that there can be differences between base and target domains which make no difference to the strength of the analogy. For example, we can see a battery as being like a reservoir despite them being different in shape, size, color and substance.
Structure-mapping theory respond by arguing that it is not object attributes which are mapped in an analogy. Instead the theory contends that an analogy alerts the hearer to a similarity in the relationships between objects in a domain. The distinction is made in terms of the arity of predicates - attributes are predicates with one argument, while relationships are predicates which take two or more arguments. So the proposition "x is large" asserts an attribute, while "x revolves around y" asserts a relationship. (Higher order predicates assert relationships between propositions)
By distinguishing attributes and relationships, we can distinguish literal similarities from analogies.
For example:
Analogies can also be distinguished from general laws
The distinction in the role of objects, attributes and relationships in the comparison also allows us to characterize a chronology as a comparison in which objects are compared (remain relatively constant), but relationships are not (i.e. are expected to differ).
Gentner provides the following table to summarize the different types of domain comparison above:
| No. attributes mapped | No. relations mapped | Example | |
| Literal similarity | Many | Many | The K5 planetary system is like the Solar System |
| Analogy | Few | Many | The atom is like the Solar System |
| Abstraction | Few* | Many | The atom is a central force system |
| Anomaly | Few | Few | Coffee is like the Solar System |
"Part of our understanding about analogy is that it conveys a system of connected knowledge, not a mere assortment of independent facts. Such a system can be represented by an interconnected predicate structure in which higher-order predicates enforce connections among lower-order predicates. reflect this tacit preference for coherence in analogy, I propose the systematicity principle: A predicate that belongs to a mappable system of mutually interconnecting relationships is more likely to be imported into the target than is an isolated predicate." (Gentner 1983, p162-163; emphasis added)
The systematicity principle helps to explain why, when comparing the atom to the Solar System, we do not try to map the relative temperature of Sun and the Earth onto the nucleus-electron system. In short, the temperature has no strong connection to the other object relationships - such as distance, attractive force, relative mass, and relative motion (who revolves around who) - which are mapped. What these other relationships share is a strong interdependence - reversing the mass relationship reverses the relative motion relationship, and changing the distance changes the attractive force, and so on.
Structure mapping, originally proposed by Dedre Gentner, is a theory in psychology that describes the psychological processes involved in reasoning through and learning from analogies. [3] More specifically, this theory aims to describe how familiar knowledge, or knowledge about a base domain, can be used to inform an individual's understanding of a less familiar idea, or a target domain. [4] According to this theory, individuals view their knowledge of domains as interconnected structures. [5] In other words, a domain is viewed as consisting of objects, their properties, and the relationships that characterize the interactions between them. [6] The process of analogy then involves:
In general, it has been found that people prefer analogies where the two systems correspond highly with each other (e.g. have similar relationships across the domains as opposed to just having similar objects across domains) when these people try to compare and contrast the systems. This is also known as the systematicity principle. [5]
An example that has been used to illustrate structure mapping theory comes from Gentner and Gentner (1983) and uses the base domain of flowing water and the target domain of electricity. [7] In a system of flowing water, the water is carried through pipes and the rate of water flow is determined by the pressure of the water towers or hills. This relationship corresponds to that of electricity flowing through a circuit. In a circuit, the electricity is carried through wires and the current, or rate of flow of electricity, is determined by the voltage, or electrical pressure. Given the similarity in structure, or structural alignment, between these domains, structure mapping theory would predict that relationships from one of these domains would be inferred in the other via analogy. [6]
Language can support analogical reasoning when relational labels are provided to increase clarity. [8] For example, children struggle when they are asked to identify the relational structure between sets of boxes (e.g., Set 1: a small, medium, and large box. Set 2: a medium, large, and extra large box). Children will tend to map the medium box in Set 1 (where it is intermediate in size) to the medium box in Set 2 (where it is smallest in size), and the same happens with the large box in both sets. However, they fail to recognise that they should map the smallest box in Set 1 to the smallest box in Set 2, and so on. Children improve in their ability to identify this relationship when they have given relational labels, such as 'baby', 'mommy', and 'daddy' [9] (or, in the box example, the words smallest, middle and largest).
While language may support analogical reasoning, it may not be necessary. Research has found that apes, who have limited language abilities, are also able to reason relationally, but this only occurs when base and target are highly aligned. [10]
How similar the objects being mapped to each other affects analogical reasoning. When objects in the base domains correspond to highly similar ones in target domains, there it is said to be very clear, which aids analogical processes. [6] Being very clear helps a lot when using analogy to support problem-solving. [4] For example, if students are asked to calculate how many golf balls each golfer will need at a tournament, they will then be able to apply this solution to future problems when the objects are highly similar (e.g. reasoning about how many tennis balls each player will need). [4]
In order to engage in analogical processes, an individual needs time to work through the processes of alignment, inference, and evaluation. If not given adequate time to engage in analogical reasoning, then one is more likely to fixate on lower level object correspondences between the two systems, as opposed identifying potentially more informative higher-order relationships that are analogous. [6] Similar effects also occur if one's working memory is under a high cognitive load at the time (e.g., the person is trying to reason through an analogy while also keeping a word in the mind). [6]
Structural alignment is one process involved in the larger structure mapping theory. [5] When people establish structural alignment between two domains that are being compared, they attempt to identify as many similarities between the systems as possible and maintain a one-to-one correspondence between elements (i.e., objects, properties, and relationships). [5] In the flowing water and electricity analogy, a one-to-one correspondence is illustrated by water pipes mapping on to wires but not corresponding with any other elements in the circuit. Furthermore, structural alignment is also characterized by parallel connectivity. If there is a one-to-one correspondence between relationships across two systems (e.g., the rate of water flow through a pipe increases with pressure similarly to how the current in an electrical circuit increases with voltage), then the relevant objects and properties must also correspond (e.g. the rate of flow of water corresponds to electrical current and water pressure corresponds to voltage) and vice versa. [7]
Analogical inference is the second process involved in the theory of structure mapping. After one finds out that the domains have a one-to-one correspondence (meaning each term in the first domain represents a similar term in the second) one can use this fact to make a conclusion about the second domain. [6] During this process an individual draws inferences about the target domain by projecting information from the base domain to said target domain. [4] The following example can be used to illustrate this process, [7] where 1 represents information about a base domain, 2 represents correspondences between the base and target domain, and 3 represents an inference about the target domain:
Evaluation is a third process involved in the theory of structure mapping and happens after individual align structures and propose inferences about the target domain. During evaluation, they judge whether the analogy is relevant and plausible. [6] This process has been described as solving the selection problem in analogy, [11] or explaining how individuals choose which inferences to map from the base to target domain as analogies would be fruitless if all possible inferences were made. An analogy can be evaluated by two factors:
Research suggests children are capable of using comparisons in order to learn abstract patterns, but this sometimes requires prompting from another. [9] To provide support for this claim, researchers taught 3- and 4-year-olds a simple relationship by showing them a series of pictures. Each picture had 3 of the same animal and was labeled as a “toma” for the child. Some of these children were prompted to compare the different ‘tomas’ while others were not. After seeing the pictures and some having been prompted to compare, the children were tested on whether or not they had learned the abstract pattern (i.e., a ‘toma’ is a triad of matching animals). Children were shown two images and asked “Which is the ‘toma’?”. The first was a relational match and displayed a triad of matching animals they had not seen before, while the second image was an object match and displayed a triad of non-matching animals that the child had seen while learning about the relationship. The children who had been prompted to compare the tomas while learning were more likely to have learned the pattern and choose the relational match when being tested. [8]
Children do not always need prompting to make comparisons in order to learn abstract relationships. Eventually, children undergo a relational shift, after which they begin seeing similar relations across different situations and instead of merely looking at matching objects. [9] This is critical in their cognitive development as continuing to focus attention on specific objects would reduce children's ability to learn abstract patterns and reason analogically. [9] Interestingly, some researchers have proposed that children's basic cognitive abilities (i.e., working memory and inhibitory control) do not drive this relational shift. Instead, it is driven by their relational knowledge, such as having labels for the objects that make the relationships more explicit (see previous section). [9] However, there is not enough evidence to determine whether the relational shift is actually because basic cognitive abilities become better or relational knowledge becomes deeper. [6]
Additionally, research has identified several factors that may increase the likelihood that a child may spontaneously engage in comparison and learn an abstract relationship, without the need for prompts. [8] Comparison is more likely when the objects to be compared are close together in space and/or time [8] are highly similar (although not so similar that they are matching objects, which interfere with identifying relationships), [6] or share common labels. [9]
Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things because of a third element that they are considered to share.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to "carry forward". Inference is theoretically traditionally divided into deduction and induction, a distinction that in Europe dates at least to Aristotle. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular evidence to a universal conclusion. A third type of inference is sometimes distinguished, notably by Charles Sanders Peirce, contradistinguishing abduction from induction.
Kenneth Dale "Ken" Forbus is an American computer scientist working as the Walter P. Murphy Professor of Computer Science and Professor of Education at Northwestern University.
A mental model in psychology is an internal representation of external reality, hypothesized to play a major role in cognition, reasoning and decision-making. The term was coined by Kenneth Craik in 1943 who suggested that the mind constructs "small-scale models" of reality that it uses to anticipate events.
Similarity refers to the psychological degree of identity of two mental representations. It is fundamental to human cognition since it provides the basis for categorization of entities into kinds and for various other cognitive processes. It underpins our ability to interact with unknown entities by predicting how they will behave based on their similarity to entities we are familiar with. Research in cognitive psychology has taken a number of approaches to the concept of similarity. Each of them is related to a particular set of assumptions about knowledge representation.
"Natural kind" is an intellectual grouping, or categorizing of things, in a manner that is reflective of the actual world and not just human interests. Some treat it as a classification identifying some structure of truth and reality that exists whether or not humans recognize it. Others treat it as intrinsically useful to the human mind, but not necessarily reflective of something more objective. Candidate examples of natural kinds are found in all the sciences, but the field of chemistry provides the paradigm example of elements.
Dedre Dariel Gentner is an American cognitive and developmental psychologist. She is the Alice Gabriel Twight Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University, and a leading researcher in the study of analogical reasoning.
Boicho Kokinov was an associate professor in cognitive science and computer science at the New Bulgarian University and the director of the Central and East European Center for Cognitive Science.
In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the structure mapping engine (SME) is an implementation in software of an algorithm for analogical matching based on the psychological theory of Dedre Gentner. The basis of Gentner's structure-mapping idea is that an analogy is a mapping of knowledge from one domain into another. The structure-mapping engine is a computer simulation of the analogy and similarity comparisons.
Analogical models are a method of representing a phenomenon of the world, often called the "target system" by another, more understandable or analysable system. They are also called dynamical analogies.
Keith James Holyoak is a Canadian–American researcher in cognitive psychology and cognitive science, working on human thinking and reasoning. Holyoak's work focuses on the role of analogy in thinking. His work showed how analogy can be used to enhance learning of new abstract concepts by both children and adults, as well as how reasoning breaks down in cases of brain damage.
Concept learning, also known as category learning, concept attainment, and concept formation, is defined by Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin (1967) as "the search for and listing of attributes that can be used to distinguish exemplars from non exemplars of various categories". More simply put, concepts are the mental categories that help us classify objects, events, or ideas, building on the understanding that each object, event, or idea has a set of common relevant features. Thus, concept learning is a strategy which requires a learner to compare and contrast groups or categories that contain concept-relevant features with groups or categories that do not contain concept-relevant features.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to thought (thinking):
Knowledge retrieval seeks to return information in a structured form, consistent with human cognitive processes as opposed to simple lists of data items. It draws on a range of fields including epistemology, cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, logic and inference, machine learning and knowledge discovery, linguistics, and information technology.
The psychology of reasoning is the study of how people reason, often broadly defined as the process of drawing conclusions to inform how people solve problems and make decisions. It overlaps with psychology, philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, logic, and probability theory.
Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development criticize and build upon Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development.
Mental operations are operations that affect mental contents. Initially, operations of reasoning have been the object of logic alone. Pierre Janet was one of the first to use the concept in psychology. Mental operations have been investigated at a developmental level by Jean Piaget, and from a psychometric perspective by J. P. Guilford. There is also a cognitive approach to the subject, as well as a systems view of it.
Knowledge extraction is the creation of knowledge from structured and unstructured sources. The resulting knowledge needs to be in a machine-readable and machine-interpretable format and must represent knowledge in a manner that facilitates inferencing. Although it is methodically similar to information extraction (NLP) and ETL, the main criterion is that the extraction result goes beyond the creation of structured information or the transformation into a relational schema. It requires either the reuse of existing formal knowledge or the generation of a schema based on the source data.
In information technology a reasoning system is a software system that generates conclusions from available knowledge using logical techniques such as deduction and induction. Reasoning systems play an important role in the implementation of artificial intelligence and knowledge-based systems.
Argument from analogy or false analogy is a special type of inductive argument, where perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. When a person has a bad experience with a product and decides not to buy anything further from the producer, this is often a case of analogical reasoning since the two products share a maker and are therefore both perceived as "bad". It is also the basis of much of science; for instance, experiments on laboratory rats are based on the fact that some physiological similarities between rats and humans implies some further similarity.
