Editing Analogy (section)

==== Structure mapping theory ====
{{Main |Structure-mapping theory}}
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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gentner|first=Dedre|date=April 1983|title=Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy*|journal=Cognitive Science|language=en|volume=7|issue=2|pages=155–170|doi=10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3|s2cid=5371492 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|last=Gentner|first=Dedre|title=Analogical Reasoning, Psychology of|date=2006|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0470018860.s00473|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science|publisher=American Cancer Society|language=en|doi=10.1002/0470018860.s00473|isbn=978-0-470-01886-6|access-date=2020-12-09}}</ref> According to this theory, individuals view their knowledge of ideas, or domains, as interconnected structures.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Gentner|first1=D.|last2=Gunn|first2=V.|date=June 2001|title=Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences|journal=Memory & Cognition|volume=29|issue=4|pages=565–577|doi=10.3758/bf03200458|issn=0090-502X|pmid=11504005|s2cid=1745309|doi-access=free}}</ref> In other words, a domain is viewed as consisting of objects, their properties, and the relationships that characterise their interactions.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last1=Gentner|first1=Dedre|last2=Smith|first2=Linsey A.|editor1-first=Daniel|editor1-last=Reisberg|date=2013-03-11|title=Analogical Learning and Reasoning|url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195376746-e-42|access-date=2020-12-09|website=The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology|language=en|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.001.0001|isbn=9780195376746}}</ref> The process of analogy then involves:

# Recognising similar structures between the base and target domains.
# Finding deeper similarities by mapping other relationships of a base domain to the target domain.
# Cross-checking those findings against existing knowledge of the target domain.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":2" />

In general, it has been found that people prefer analogies where the two systems correspond highly to 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.<ref name=":1" />

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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|last1=Gentner|first1=Dedre|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315802725|title=Mental Models|last2=Stevens|first2=Albert L.|date=2014-01-14|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-1-315-80272-5|language=en|doi=10.4324/9781315802725}}</ref> 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 [[Hydraulic analogy|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 using analogy.<ref name=":2" />

===== Children =====
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 instead of merely looking at matching objects.<ref name=":5">{{Citation|last1=Hespos|first1=Susan J.|title=Structure-Mapping Processes Enable Infants' Learning Across Domains Including Language|date=2020|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35594-4_5|work=Language and Concept Acquisition from Infancy Through Childhood: Learning from Multiple Exemplars|pages=79–104|editor-last=Childers|editor-first=Jane B.|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-030-35594-4_5|isbn=978-3-030-35594-4|access-date=2020-12-09|last2=Anderson|first2=Erin|last3=Gentner|first3=Dedre| s2cid=213450124 }}</ref> This is critical in their cognitive development as continuing to focus on specific objects would reduce children's ability to learn abstract patterns and reason analogically.<ref name=":5" /> Interestingly, some researchers have proposed that children's basic brain functions (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 clearer(see previous section).<ref name=":5" /> However, there is not enough evidence to determine whether the relational shift is actually because basic brain functions become better or relational knowledge becomes deeper.<ref name=":2" />

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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Gentner|first1=Dedre|last2=Hoyos|first2=Christian|date=2017|title=Analogy and Abstraction|journal=Topics in Cognitive Science|language=en|volume=9|issue=3|pages=672–693|doi=10.1111/tops.12278|pmid=28621480|issn=1756-8765|doi-access=free}}</ref> Comparison is more likely when the objects to be compared are close together in space and/or time,<ref name=":6" /> are highly similar (although not so similar that they match, which interfere with identifying relationships),<ref name=":2" /> or share common labels.