The one-to-one constraint in analogical mapping and inference

Daniel C. Krawczyk, Keith J. Holyoak, John E. Hummel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Theories of analogical reasoning have assumed that a 1-to-1 constraint discourages reasoners from mapping a single element in 1 analog to multiple elements in another. Empirical evidence suggests that reasoners sometimes appear to violate the 1-to-1 constraint when asked to generate mappings, yet virtually never violate it when asked to generate analogical inferences. However, few studies have examined analogical inferences based on nonisomorphic analogs, and their conclusions are suspect due to methodological problems. We sought to elicit mixed inferences that could result from combining information from 2 possible mappings. Participants generated 2-to-1 correspondences when asked for explicit mappings, but did not produce mixed inferences. Multiple correspondences appear to arise from multiple isomorphic mappings, rather than from a single homomorphic mapping.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)797-806
Number of pages10
JournalCognitive Science
Volume29
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2005

Fingerprint

evidence
Inference
Empirical Evidence
Methodological Problems
Analogical Reasoning

Keywords

  • Analogy
  • Human experimentation
  • Knowledge representation
  • Problem solving
  • Reasoning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

The one-to-one constraint in analogical mapping and inference. / Krawczyk, Daniel C.; Holyoak, Keith J.; Hummel, John E.

In: Cognitive Science, Vol. 29, No. 5, 09.2005, p. 797-806.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Krawczyk, Daniel C. ; Holyoak, Keith J. ; Hummel, John E. / The one-to-one constraint in analogical mapping and inference. In: Cognitive Science. 2005 ; Vol. 29, No. 5. pp. 797-806.
@article{33d9c171f7f9423eaee677748e8ed62a,
title = "The one-to-one constraint in analogical mapping and inference",
abstract = "Theories of analogical reasoning have assumed that a 1-to-1 constraint discourages reasoners from mapping a single element in 1 analog to multiple elements in another. Empirical evidence suggests that reasoners sometimes appear to violate the 1-to-1 constraint when asked to generate mappings, yet virtually never violate it when asked to generate analogical inferences. However, few studies have examined analogical inferences based on nonisomorphic analogs, and their conclusions are suspect due to methodological problems. We sought to elicit mixed inferences that could result from combining information from 2 possible mappings. Participants generated 2-to-1 correspondences when asked for explicit mappings, but did not produce mixed inferences. Multiple correspondences appear to arise from multiple isomorphic mappings, rather than from a single homomorphic mapping.",
keywords = "Analogy, Human experimentation, Knowledge representation, Problem solving, Reasoning",
author = "Krawczyk, {Daniel C.} and Holyoak, {Keith J.} and Hummel, {John E.}",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1207/s15516709cog0000_27",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "797--806",
journal = "Cognitive Science",
issn = "0364-0213",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The one-to-one constraint in analogical mapping and inference

AU - Krawczyk, Daniel C.

AU - Holyoak, Keith J.

AU - Hummel, John E.

PY - 2005/9

Y1 - 2005/9

N2 - Theories of analogical reasoning have assumed that a 1-to-1 constraint discourages reasoners from mapping a single element in 1 analog to multiple elements in another. Empirical evidence suggests that reasoners sometimes appear to violate the 1-to-1 constraint when asked to generate mappings, yet virtually never violate it when asked to generate analogical inferences. However, few studies have examined analogical inferences based on nonisomorphic analogs, and their conclusions are suspect due to methodological problems. We sought to elicit mixed inferences that could result from combining information from 2 possible mappings. Participants generated 2-to-1 correspondences when asked for explicit mappings, but did not produce mixed inferences. Multiple correspondences appear to arise from multiple isomorphic mappings, rather than from a single homomorphic mapping.

AB - Theories of analogical reasoning have assumed that a 1-to-1 constraint discourages reasoners from mapping a single element in 1 analog to multiple elements in another. Empirical evidence suggests that reasoners sometimes appear to violate the 1-to-1 constraint when asked to generate mappings, yet virtually never violate it when asked to generate analogical inferences. However, few studies have examined analogical inferences based on nonisomorphic analogs, and their conclusions are suspect due to methodological problems. We sought to elicit mixed inferences that could result from combining information from 2 possible mappings. Participants generated 2-to-1 correspondences when asked for explicit mappings, but did not produce mixed inferences. Multiple correspondences appear to arise from multiple isomorphic mappings, rather than from a single homomorphic mapping.

KW - Analogy

KW - Human experimentation

KW - Knowledge representation

KW - Problem solving

KW - Reasoning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27844497981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27844497981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_27

DO - 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_27

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 797

EP - 806

JO - Cognitive Science

JF - Cognitive Science

SN - 0364-0213

IS - 5

ER -