The Effects of Surface Similarity and Presentation Mode on Relational Analogical Reasoning: The Match Effect

Xie Weiye; Liu Yucheng; Cai Lixue; Han Linzhu; Liu Zhiya

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240401

PDF(1267 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2024, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (4) : 770-779. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240401

General Psychology, Experimental Psychology & Ergonomics

The Effects of Surface Similarity and Presentation Mode on Relational Analogical Reasoning: The Match Effect

Xie Weiye, Liu Yucheng, Cai Lixue, Han Linzhu, Liu Zhiya

Author information +

History +

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.

Key words

relational reasoning / surface similarity / presentation mode / working memory / proactive brain

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Xie Weiye, Liu Yucheng, Cai Lixue, Han Linzhu, Liu Zhiya. The Effects of Surface Similarity and Presentation Mode on Relational Analogical Reasoning: The Match Effect[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2024, 47(4): 770-779 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240401

References

[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.