Abstract

There is general agreement that structural similarity — a match in relational structure — is crucial in analogical processing. However, theories differ in their definitions of structural similarity: in particular, in whether there must be conceptual similarity between the relations in the two domains or whether parallel graph structure is sufficient. In two studies, we demonstrate, first, that people draw analogical correspondences based on matches in conceptual relations, rather than on purely structural graph matches; and, second, that people draw analogical inferences between passages that have matching conceptual relations, but not between passages with purely structural graph matches.