Development of analogical reasoning in 4- and 5-year-old children

Alexander, Patricia A.; Willson, Victor L.; White, Christopher C.; Fuqua, J. Diane; Clark, Gregory; Wilson, Alice F.; Kulikowich, Jonna M.

doi:10.1016/0885-2014(89)90005-1

Cited by 40 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results from the Oden et al (2001) study not only confirmed Gillan et al's (1981) earlier evidence that Sarah can solve analogy problems, but they provided new evidence that she could do so spontaneously; in no case, did Sarah ever attempt to use a less efficient associative strategy as can occur with children (Alexander et al, 1989).…”

Section: Formal Analogical Reasoning By Sarah a Chimpanzeementioning

(Expert classified)

Concept Learning in Animals

Zentall¹,

Wasserman²,

Lazareva³

et al. 2008

CCBR

161

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generally speaking, the study of concepts in cognitive psychology is anthropocentric with respect to both content and theory. A broader comparative perspective on the various forms of concept learning not only provides a more inclusive view of conceptual behavior, but it also provides a more objective perspective from which to identify underlying processes. We suggest that several of the major varieties of conceptual classes claimed to be uniquely human are also exhibited by nonhuman animals. We present evidence for the formation of several sorts of conceptual stimulus classes by nonhuman animals: perceptual classes involving classification according to the shared attributes of objects, associative classes or functional equivalences in which stimuli form a class based on common associations, relational classes, in which the conceptual relationship between or among stimuli defines the class, and relations between relations, in which the conceptual (analogical) relationship is defined by the relation between classes of stimuli. We conclude that not only are nonhuman animals capable of acquiring a wide variety of concepts, but that the underlying processes that determine concept learning are also likely to be quite similar.

show abstract

Section: Formal Analogical Reasoning By Sarah a Chimpanzeementioning

(Expert classified)

Concept Learning in Animals

Zentall¹,

Wasserman²,

Lazareva³

et al. 2008

CCBR

161

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This inadvertent control by the b-term might also exist in classical analogy tasks used in prominent studies on cognitive development. Consider the following analogy task used by Goswami and Brown (1990) Alexander et al (1989). Analysis of the examples of the analogy tasks given in that study revealed that, without exception, the correct dterm options can be identified on the basis of the color of the b-term alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching Derived Functionally-Same Stimulus Relations: Equivalence-Equivalence and Classical Analogies

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that, after being trained on A-B and A-C matching tasks, subjects match not only functionally-same Band C stimuli (stimulus equivalence), but also BC compounds with sameclass elements and BC compounds with different-class elements (equivalence-equivalence) . Similar performances are required in classical analogies (a : b :: c : d). Therefore, some researchers have argued that equivalence-equivalence can serve as a behavior analytic model for analogical reasoning. Recent studies, however, have shown that compounds with same-class elements and different-class elements have different discriminative (S+, S-) properties. Hence, matching of same discriminative functions may have occurred. The present study aimed to design an equivalence-equivalence test in which the designated correct performances cannot be attributed to a process other than matching functionally-same relations. In Experiment 1 , subjects were trained to relate X and Y stimuli to colors and X and l stimuli to forms. After equivalence was assessed (Y-Xl) , the subjects received an equivalence-equivalence test in which only compounds with same-class elements were used: an XY or Xl compound as sample and an XY and Xl compound as comparisons (e.g., X1Y1-X2Y2IX2Z2). All subjects passed the equivalenceequivalence test. However, as reported by 1 subject, and was later demonstrated in Experiment 2, these equivalence-equivalence tasks could be solved by matching functionally-same stimuli (e.g., Y1-color-Y2, hence Y1-Y2). Experiment 3 demonstrated that this problem also exists in classical analogy tasks. When given the analogy tasks used by Goswami and Brown (1990) , all subjects selected the correct dterm option on the basis of the b-term alone (equivalence) . In Experiment 4, the equivalence-equivalence test was further modified to permit differentiation of matching functionally-same relations from matching functionally-same stimuli. All 5 subjects readily matched functionally-same equivalence relations, thus evidenced equivalenceequivalence or analogical reasoning.Correspondence should be sent to Paul M. Smeets,

show abstract

“…In most studies, children older than 6 years have displayed clear improvements in analogical reasoning after receiving a (brief) period of training or, alternatively, after having been given extensive instructions or training for, for example, verbal analogies (Resing, 2000), physical problem analogies (Tunteler & Resing, 2007), concrete pictorial analogies (Hessels-Schlatter, 2002;Stevenson, Resing, & Froma, 2009), and classic geometric analogies (Hosenfeld, Van der Maas, & Van den Boom, 1997;Tunteler, Pronk, & Resing, 2008). In contrast, younger children have tended only to show such gains when they had received extensive training (Alexander et al, 1989;Tunteler & Resing, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The development and training of children's ability to reason by analogy have also been studied extensively (Alexander et al, 1989;Alexander, Willson, White, & Fuqua, 1987;Goswami, 2013). In most studies, children older than 6 years have displayed clear improvements in analogical reasoning after receiving a (brief) period of training or, alternatively, after having been given extensive instructions or training for, for example, verbal analogies (Resing, 2000), physical problem analogies (Tunteler & Resing, 2007), concrete pictorial analogies (Hessels-Schlatter, 2002;Stevenson, Resing, & Froma, 2009), and classic geometric analogies (Hosenfeld, Van der Maas, & Van den Boom, 1997;Tunteler, Pronk, & Resing, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progression paths in children’s problem solving: The influence of dynamic testing, initial variability, and working memory

Resing

Bakker

Pronk

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Progression paths in children's problem solving:The influence of dynamic testing, initial variability and working-memory AbstractThe current study investigated developmental trajectories of analogical reasoning performance of 104 7-to-8-year-old children. We employed a microgenetic research method and multilevel analysis to examine the influence of several background variables and experimental treatment on the children's developmental trajectories. Our participants were divided into two treatment groups: repeated practice alone and repeated practice with training. Each child received an initial working-memory assessment, and was subsequently asked to solve figural analogies on each of several sessions. We examined children's analogical problem-solving behavior and their subsequent verbal accounts of their employed solving processes. We also investigated the influence of verbal and visual-spatial working-memory capacity and initial variability in strategyuse on analogical reasoning development. Results indicated that children in both treatment groups improved but gains were greater for those who had received training. Training also reduced the influence of children's initial variability in the use of analogical strategies with the degree of improvement in reasoning largely unrelated to working memory capacity. Findings from this study demonstrate the value of a microgenetic research method and the use of multilevel analysis to examine inter-and intra-individual change in problem-solving processes.

show abstract

Development of analogical reasoning in 4- and 5-year-old children

Cited by 40 publications

References 14 publications

Concept Learning in Animals

Concept Learning in Animals

Matching Derived Functionally-Same Stimulus Relations: Equivalence-Equivalence and Classical Analogies

Progression paths in children’s problem solving: The influence of dynamic testing, initial variability, and working memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About