Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:13:39.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analogy is to priming as relations are to transformations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2008

Vladimir M. Sloutsky
Vladimir M. Sloutsky
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Science and Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. Sloutsky.1@osu.eduhttp://cogdev.cog.ohio-state.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The commentary discusses three components of the target proposal: (1) analogy as a host of phenomena, (2) relations as transformations, and (3) analogy as priming. The commentary argues that the first component is potentially productive, but it has yet to be fully developed, whereas the second and third components do not have an obvious way of accounting for multiple counterexamples.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 396 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chen, Z., Sanchez, R. P. & Campbell, T. (1997) From beyond to within their grasp: The rudiments of analogical problem solving in 10- and 13-month-olds. Developmental Psychology 33:790–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
French, R. M. (2002) The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:200–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goswami, U. (2001) Analogical reasoning in children. In: The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, ed. Holyoak, K., Gentner, D. & Kokinov, B., pp. 437–70. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, U. & Brown, A. L. (1989) Melting chocolate and melting snowmen: Analogical reasoning and causal relations. Cognition 35:69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, U. & Brown, A. L. (1990) Higher-order structure and relational reasoning: Contrasting analogical and thematic relations. Cognition 36:207–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goswami, U. & Pauen, S. (2005) The effects of a “family” analogy on class inclusion reasoning by young children. Swiss Journal of Psychology 64:115–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloos, H. & Sloutsky, V. M. (2008) What's behind different kinds of kinds: Effects of statistical density on learning and representation of categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 137:52–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotovsky, L. & Gentner, D. (1996) Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development 67:2797–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, J. & Gentner, D. (2005) Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology 50:315–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. K. R., Oden, D. L. & Boysen, S. T. (1997) Language-naive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) judge relations-between-relations in a conceptual matching task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 23:31–43.Google Scholar