关系类比推理是将一种情境中的某种关系推导至另一种情境中的过程,被试由“源问题”中隐含的某种结构关系映射到“靶问题”中也存在这种关系,即进行了关系类比推理。本研究采用图片匹配范式,通过两个实验考察了表面相似性与呈现方式对关系类比推理的影响,其中实验1探讨“源问题”和“靶问题”存在相同匹配物的情景,实验2探讨无相同匹配物的情景。实验1结果发现,同时呈现方式更有利于关系推理,低表面相似性更有利于关系推理;实验2发现,虽然同时呈现方式仍利于关系推理,但高表面相似性反而更利于关系推理。两个实验的对比分析揭示了一种“匹配物效应”：有相同匹配物情景下,低表面相似性比高表面相似性做出了更多的关系推理,而无相同匹配物情景下则出现了相反的结果。根据这些结果,讨论了“积极脑”的理论解释。
Abstract
Relational analogical reasoning is the process of deriving a relation from one situation (the source) and applying it to another (the target). Based on the theories of the proactive brain (Bar, 2007, 2009), this study tested the influences of surface similarity and presentation mode (simultaneous versus sequential) on analogical relationship mapping. The study further compared the rate of relationship mapping when an identical match for the key object in the source was also present in the target (Experiment 1) and when an identical match was not present (Experiment 2).
The experiments adopted a 2 (presentation mode: simultaneous presentation, sequential presentation) × 2 (surface similarity: high similarity, low similarity) between-subject design. The picture mapping paradigm was a paper-and-pencil test, in which subjects viewed pairs of black-and-white sketches illustrating 30 themes (e.g., hanging an item). One item illustrating a relationship was circled in the source picture (e.g., a hat rack) and participants needed to circle the corresponding item in the target picture (e.g., a doorknob). The perceptual similarity between items in the source and target pictures was manipulated in different experimental conditions. High and low similarity items in the target pictures had the same relationship structure to the circled item in the source picture, but with different degrees of surface similarity. For example, a hat rack in the source image might map onto a bag hook (high similarity) or a doorknob (low similarity) in the target image. As for presentation mode, simultaneous presentation meant that the source picture and the target picture were presented at the top and bottom of a single page, so that participants could easily look back and forth between pictures. Sequential presentation meant that the source picture and the target picture were presented on the front and back sides of a single sheet, so that they could not be viewed at the same time. In Experiment 1, the target pictures always included identical matches for the critical items from the source images (e.g., a hat rack in the source image also appeared in the target image, even though the analogical relationship was to a different object). In Experiment 2, the identical matches were not present: the critical items from the source images were deleted in the target images. The sample sizes for Experiments 1 and 2 were 187 and 183, respectively. The primary dependent measure was the proportion of trials on which items were chosen based on relationship mapping.
Experiment 1 with identical matches found that the participants were more likely to choose items with the same relationship structure in the target pictures in the low-surface-similarity condition. Therefore, low surface similarity was more conducive to relational reasoning than high surface similarity. In contrast, Experiment 2 without identical matches found that the participants were more likely to choose items with the same relationship structure in the target pictures in the high-surface-similarity condition. Therefore, in this experiment, high surface similarity was more conducive to relational reasoning than low surface similarity, contrary to the results of Experiment 1. In both experiments, simultaneous presentation was more conducive to relational reasoning than sequential presentation.
The comparative analysis of the two experiments reveals an effect, which is called the "match effect" in this study. When an identical match for the critical object in the source image was present, low surface similarity promoted relational reasoning. However, when an identical match was absent, high surface similarity promoted relational reasoning. This effect indicates that the presence or absence of an identical match for critical objects across situations is one of the important conditions for stimulating the proactive brain to explore novel relationships. In addition, both experiments found that relational reasoning performance in simultaneous presentation was better than that in sequential presentation, which indicates that relational reasoning process relies on working memory since sequential presentation requires the participants to hold one image in working memory to compare it with the other. The match effect of relational reasoning can inform education. When people are presented with repetitive and similar ideas, their proactive brains are more likely to function and come up with more novel solutions through in-depth thinking.
关键词
关系推理 /
表面相似性 /
呈现方式 /
工作记忆 /
积极脑
Key words
relational reasoning /
surface similarity /
presentation mode /
working memory /
proactive brain
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 韩瑽瑽, 陈英和, 于晓, 邓之君, 刘静, 侯江文, 林燕燕. (2020). 表面相似性对数量关系和相对大小关系理解的影响. 心理发展与教育, 36(3), 257-264.
[2] 李美佳, 庄丹琪, 彭华茂. (2018). 基于问题解决式的类比推理的老化: 表面相似性和结构相似性的作用. 心理学报, 50(11), 1282-1291.
[3] 罗蓉, 胡竹菁. (2010). 相似性、相似性组合及元认知监控对问题类比推理的影响研究. 心理与行为研究, 8(4), 246-251.
[4] 闵容, 胡竹菁. (2019). 注意分散对类比推理内隐加工的影响. 心理学探新, 39(2), 120-126.
[5] 孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉. (2007). 决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 721-845.
[6] Alfieri L., Nokes-Malach T. J., & Schunn C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87-113.
[7] Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 280-289.
[8] Bar, M. (2009). The proactive brain: Memory for predictions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 1521(364), 1235-1243.
[9] Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2008). The proactive brain: Using rudimentary information to make predictive judgments. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4-5), 319-330.
[10] Baror, S., & Bar, M. (2016). Associative activation and its relation to exploration and exploitation in the brain. Psychological Science, 27(6), 776-789.
[11] Catrambone, R. (2002). The effects of surface and structural feature matches on the access of story analogs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 318-334.
[12] Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2010). Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 356-373.
[13] Day, S. B., & Gentner, D. (2007). Nonintentional analogical inference in text comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 35(1), 39-49.
[14] Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
[15] Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170.
[16] Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child Development, 59(1), 47-59.
[17] Gentner D., Loewenstein J., & Thompson L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393-408.
[18] Gentner, D., & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65(2-3), 263-297.
[19] Gentner, D., & Namy, L. L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development, 14(4), 487-513.
[20] Gentner D., Rattermann M. J., & Forbus K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 524-575.
[21] Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1-38.
[22] Goldwater M. B., Don H. J., Krusche M. J. F., & Livesey E. J. (2018). Relational discovery in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(1), 1-35.
[23] Goldwater, M. B., & Markman, A. B. (2011). Categorizing entities by common role. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(2), 406-413.
[24] Goldwater, M. B., & Schalk, L. (2016). Relational categories as a bridge between cognitive and educational research. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 729-757.
[25] Hanania, R., & Smith, L. B. (2010). Selective attention and attention switching: Towards a unified developmental approach. Developmental Science, 13(4), 622-635.
[26] Haryu E., Imai M., & Okada H. (2011). Object similarity bootstraps young children to action-based verb extension. Child Development, 82(2), 674-686.
[27] Holyoak K. J.(2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 234-259). Oxford University Press.
[28] Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13(3), 295-355.
[29] Jablansky S., Alexander P. A., Dumas D., & Compton V. (2016). Developmental differences in relational reasoning among primary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 592-608.
[30] Kalkstein D. A., Hackel L. M., & Trope Y. (2020). Person-centered cognition: The presence of people in a visual scene promotes relational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, Article 104009.
[31] Kalkstein D. A., Hubbard A. D., & Trope Y. (2018). Beyond direct reference: Comparing the present to the past promotes abstract processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(6), 933-938.
[32] Lane, S. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2004). Skimming the surface: Verbal overshadowing of analogical retrieval. Psychological Science, 15(11), 715-719.
[33] Li J. S., Li X. Y., Zhang X. Q., Shi K., & He Y. H. (2020). Can unconscious thought detect relational similarities? International Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 60-66.
[34] Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 431-467.
[35] Payne J. W., Bettman J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). The adaptive decision maker: Effort and accuracy in choice In R M Hogarth (Ed), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J Einhorn (pp 129-153) University of Chicago Press Effort and accuracy in choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp. 129-153). University of Chicago Press.
[36] Pierce, K. A., & Gholson, B. (1994). Surface similarity and relational similarity in the development of analogical problem solving: Isomorphic and nonisomorphic transfer. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 724-737.
[37] Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28-43.
[38] Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561-574.
[39] Ross, B. H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 456-468.
[40] Sieck W. R., Quinn C. N., & Schooler J. W. (1999). Justification effects on the judgment of analogy. Memory and Cognition, 27(5), 844-855.
[41] Silliman, D. C., & Kurtz, K. J. (2019). Evidence of analogical re-representation from a change detection task. Cognition, 190, 128-136.
[42] Thompson V. A., Turner J. A. P., & Pennycook G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107-140.
[43] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
[44] Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.
[45] Tversky, A., & Gati, I. (1978). Studies of similarity. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Lawrence Elbaum Associates.
[46] Vendetti M. S., Wu A., & Holyoak K. J. (2014). Far-out thinking: Generating solutions to distant analogies promotes relational thinking. Psychological Science, 25(4), 928-933.
[47] Waltz J. A., Lau A., Grewal S. K., & Holyoak K. J. (2000). The role of working memory in analogical mapping. Memory and Cognition, 28(7), 1205-1212.
[48] Wharton C. M., Holyoak K. J., & Lange T. E. (1996). Remote analogical reminding. Memory and Cognition, 24(5), 629-643.
[49] Young D. L., Goodie A. S., Hall D. B., & Wu E. (2012). Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 179-188.
[50] Yuan L., Uttal D., & Gentner D. (2017). Analogical processes in children's understanding of spatial representations. Developmental Psychology, 53(6), 1098-1114.
基金
*本研究得到教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“学习认知过程与学科素养培养研究”（22JJD190006）和广东省基础与应用基础研究基金自然科学基金(2023A1515012355)的资助
PDF(1267 KB)
