Analogical inferences mediated by relational categories

Abstract

The standard approach posits that analogical inferences are generated by copying unmapped base relations, substituting mapped target entities for source entities, and generating slots for base entities that have not found a correspondence in the target. In the present study we argue that this mechanism does not adequately explain the generation of inferences mediated by relational categories. Experiment 1 revealed that for analogies in which the gist of the information to be transferred is better captured by relational categories than by explicit relations, inferences are more concerned with reinstantiating the base relational category than with ensuring that the relation of the inference resembles that of the base. Experiment 2 replicated this finding with analogies between situations maintaining a higher degree of semantic and contextual distance. The following experiments addressed whether there are further restrictions that guide a more fine-grained selection of exemplars. Experiment 3 revealed that when no relevant differences exist between compared situations, the exemplars included in analogical inferences tend to match the base exemplars along salient dimensions of the relational category to which both exemplars belong. In turn, Experiment 4 replicated this finding with analogies between situations maintaining some degree of semantic and contextual distance. The study adds to a growing literature recognizing the role of categorization in analogical reasoning. The challenges posed by the present results to the traditional view of analogical inference are discussed, as well as the prospects of the categorial mechanism for explaining other types of analogies not included in the present study.