Abstract

INTRODUCTION were unable to preserve the plot strucwre in their mapping, although they could transfer the The ability to use relational similarity is story plot accurately when given similar charconsidered a hallmark of sophisticated thinkacters in similar roles. Older children (9-yearsing; it plays a role in theories of categorizaold) could maintain a focus on the relational tion, inference, transfer of learning and generstructure and transfer the plot accurately despite alization (Gentner& Markman, 1997 ; Halford, competing object matches . There is evidence 1993 ; Holyoak & Thagard, 1995 ; Novick, 1988 ; that this shift from objects to relations is based Ross, 1989). However, young children often on gains in knowledge (Brown, 1989 ; Goswafail to notice or use relational similarity (Genmi, 1993 ; Kotovsky & Gentner, 1996 ; Rattertier, 1988 ; Gentner & Rattermann, 1991 ; Gosmane & Gentner, in press), although ntaturawami, 1993 ; Halford, 1993). For example, tional changes may also play a role (Halford, when given the metaphor "plant stems are like Wilson, Guo, Gayler, Wiles & Stewart, 1995) . drinking straws" 5-year-old children focus on Children's ability to carry out purely relathe common object similarities, commenting tional comparisons improves markedly across that ' T ey are both long and thin," whereas 9development . Yet even very young children can year-olds focus on the relational commonality reason analogically under some circumstances that "They both carry water" (Gentner, !988) . (Crisafi & Brown, 1986 ; Kotovsky and GentThis relational shift in children's use of ner, 1996). For example, Gentner (1977) demsimilarity-a shift from early attention to corn onstrated that preschool children can perform mon object properties to later attention to coma spatial analogy between the familiar base mon relational structure-has been noted domain of the human body and simple pictured across many different tasks and domains (Genobjects, such as trees and mountains . When tner & Rattermann ; 1991 ; Halford, 1993) . For asked, "if the tree had a knee, where would it instance, Gentner and Toupin (1986) presentbe?," even 4-year-olds (as well as 6and 8-yeared children with a story mapping task in which olds) were as accurate as adults in performing object similarity and relational similarity were the mapping of the human body to a pictured cross-mapped : that is, similar objects were object, even when the orientation of the tree placed in different relational roles in the two was changed or when confusing surface atscenarios, so that the plot-preserving relationtributes were added to the pictures . al correspondences were incompatible with What factors impede or promok the perobvious object-based correspondences . Under ception of common relational structure? Acthese conflict conditions, 6-year-old children cording to structure-mapping theory (Gentner,