Similarity and analogical reasoning: a synthesis

By Stella Vosniadou, Andrew Ortony. 1989

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. (2002, background): “Specifically, they were not formulated to inform us about whether far transfer is as rare as Detterman (1993) claimed or as pervasive as others alleged (eg, Brown, 1989; Halpern, 1998).”
Compared With What? The Effects of Different Comparisons on Conceptual Knowledge and Procedural Flexibility for Equation Solving (2009, background): “Examples that vary on one or a few important dimensions have been labeled contrasting examples, and contrasting examples may be particularly important when targeting outcomes beyond procedural knowledge (Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989).”
Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers (2013, background): “A structural similarity is about relational similarity, whereas a surface similarity is attributional (Vosniadou & Ortony, 1989).”
Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling (2000, background): “These relations are of the `If . . . then’ type production rule, between the change of state in a component and the change of state in another component (Vosniadou and Ortony 1989).”
When group membership gets personal: a theory of identity fusion. (2012, background): “In this way, the tendency to fuse with other group members may have gradually shifted from local fusion (often based on genetic relatedness) to something resembling the modern construct of “shared essence,” a sense of deep, underlying similarity that provides a basis for extended fusion (Medin & Ort”
How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. (1992, background): “Smith & Medin, 1981), such as “has wings” or “four legs,” likely to lead to conceptual understanding either, for the same reason that feature theories have failed as an approach to understanding semantic development (Armstrong, Gleitman, & Gleitman, 1983; Medin & Ortony, 1989; Palermo, 1986).”
Cognitive Processes of Opportunity Recognition: The Role of Structural Alignment (2010, background): “Cognitive scientists have shown that similarity comparisons and the underlying mechanism of structural alignment play an important role in how people make sense of new information, learn new concepts, and develop categories (cf. Holland et al. 1986, Vosniadou and Ortony 1989).”
Explaining the Special Case of Incongruity in Advertising: Combining Classic Theoretical Approaches (2004, background): “The process of alternative schema utilizes analogies in perceiving similarities between the existing schema and an incongruent representation (Vosniadou and Ortony, 1989).”
The Importance of Prior Knowledge When Comparing Examples: Influences on Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Equation Solving (2009, background): “Indeed, past research suggests that focusing attention on critical problem features supports knowledge transfer (Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989) and procedural flexibility (Rittle-Johnson & Star, in press; see Table 6).”