Analogical reasoning –learning about new things by relating it to previous knowledge– lies at the heart of human intelligence and creativity and forms the core of educational practice. Children start creating and using analogies early on, making incredible progress moving from associative processes to successful analogical reasoning. For example, if we ask a four-year-old “Horse belongs to stable like chicken belongs to …?” they may use association and reply “egg”, whereas older children will likely give the intended relational response “chicken coop” (or other term to refer to a chicken’s home). Interestingly, despite state-of-the-art AI-language models having superhuman encyclopedic knowledge and superior memory and computational power, our pilot studies show that these large language models often make mistakes providing associative rather than relational responses to verbal analogies. For example, when we asked four- to eight-year-olds to solve the analogy “body is to feet as tree is to …?” they responded “roots” without hesitation, but large language models tend to provide more associative responses such as “leaves”. In this study we examine the similarities and differences between children's and six large language models' (Dutch/multilingual models: RobBERT, BERT-je, M-BERT, GPT-2, M-GPT, Word2Vec and Fasttext) responses to verbal analogies extracted from an online adaptive learning environment, where >14,000 7-12 year-olds from the Netherlands solved 20 or more items from a database of 900 Dutch language verbal analogies.

Prior studies of A:B::C:D verbal analogies have identified several factors that affect performance, including the semantic similarity between source and target domains (semantic distance), the semantic association between the C-term and incorrect answers (distracter salience), and the type of relations between word pairs (e.g., categorical, compositional, and causal). However, it is unclear how these stimulus properties affect performance when utilized together. Moreover, how do these item factors interact with individual differences such as crystallized intelligence and creative thinking? Several studies reveal interactions among these item and individual difference factors impacting verbal analogy performance. For example, a three-way interaction demonstrated that the effects of semantic distance and distracter salience had a greater impact on performance for compositional and causal relations than for categorical ones (Jones, Kmiecik, Irwin, & Morrison, 2022). Implications for analogy theories and future directions are discussed.

In this talk, I will present the results of two recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to analogical reasoning and metaphor processing in autism, together with the results of a study that investigated verbal analogical reasoning and metaphor processing in the same sample of participants. Both metaphors and analogies rely on exploiting similarities, and they necessitate contextual processing. Nevertheless, our findings relating to metaphor processing and analogical reasoning showed distinct patterns. Whereas analogical reasoning emerged as a relative strength in autism, metaphor processing was found to be a relative weakness. Additionally, both meta-analytic studies investigated the relations between the level of intelligence of participants included in the studies, and the effect size of group differences between the autistic and typically developing (TD) samples. These analyses suggested in the case of analogical reasoning that the relative advantage of ASD participants might only be present in the case of individuals with lower levels of intelligence. By contrast, impairments in metaphor processing appeared to be more pronounced in the case of individuals with relatively lower levels of (verbal) intelligence. In our experimental study, we administered both verbal analogies and metaphors to the same sample of high-functioning autistic participants and TD controls. The two groups were matched on age, verbal IQ, working memory and educational background. Our aim was to understand better the similarities and differences between processing analogies and metaphors, and to see whether the advantage in analogical reasoning and disadvantage in metaphor processing is universal in autism.