Vector-space models are used frequently to compare similarity and dimensionality among entity concepts. What happens when we apply these models to relational concepts? What is the evidence that such models do apply to relational concepts? If we use such a model, then one implication is that maximizing surface feature variation should improve relational concept learning. For example, in STEM instruction, the effectiveness of teaching by analogy is often limited by students’ focus on superficial features of the source and target exemplars. However, in contrast to the prediction of the vector-space computational model, the strategy of progressive alignment (moving from perceptually similar to different targets) has been suggested to address this issue (Gentner & Hoyos, 2017), and human behavioral evidence has shown benefits from progressive alignment. Here I will present some preliminary data that supports the computational approach. Participants were explicitly instructed to match stimuli based on relations while perceptual similarity of stimuli varied parametrically. We found that lower perceptual similarity reduced accurate relational matching. This finding demonstrates that perceptual similarity may interfere with relational judgements, but also hints at why progressive alignment maybe effective. These are preliminary, exploratory data and I to hope receive feedback on the framework and to start a discussion in a group on the utility of vector-space models for relational concepts in general.

Children's emerging ability to acquire and apply relational same-different concepts is often cited as a defining feature of human cognition, providing the foundation for abstract thought. Yet, young learners often struggle to ignore irrelevant surface features to attend to structural similarity instead. I will argue that young children have--and retain--genuine relational concepts from a young age, but tend to neglect abstract similarity due to a learned bias to attend to objects and their properties. Critically, this account predicts that differences in the structure of children's environmental input should lead to differences in the type of hypotheses they privilege and apply. I will review empirical support for this proposal that has (1) evaluated the robustness of early competence in relational reasoning, (2) identified cross-cultural differences in relational and object bias, and (3) provided evidence that contextual factors play a causal role in relational reasoning. Together, these studies suggest that the development of abstract thought may be more malleable and context-sensitive than initially believed.

Existing accounts of analogical transfer highlight the importance of comparison-based schema abstraction in aiding retrieval of relevant prior knowledge from memory. In this talk, we discuss an alternative view, the category status hypothesis—which states that if knowledge of a target principle is represented as a relational category, it is easier to activate as a result of categorizing (as opposed to cue-based reminding)—and briefly review supporting evidence. We then further investigate this hypothesis by designing study tasks that promote different facets of category-level representations and assess their impact on spontaneous analogical transfer. A Baseline group compared two analogous cases; the remaining groups experienced comparison plus another task intended to impact the category status of the knowledge representation. The Intension group read an abstract statement of the principle with a supporting task of generating a new case. The Extension group read two more positive cases with the task of judging whether each exemplified the target principle. The Mapping group read a contrast case with the task of revising it into a positive example of the target principle (thereby providing practice moving in both directions between type and token, i.e., evaluating a given case relative to knowledge and using knowledge to generate a revised case). The results demonstrated that both Intension and Extension groups led to transfer improvements over Baseline (with the former demonstrating both improved accessibility of prior knowledge and ability to apply relational concepts). Implications for theories of analogical transfer are discussed.