Explaining the Ability to Learn Analogies: The Role of Executive Functions and Fluid Intelligence

Explaining the Ability to Learn Analogies: The Role of Executive Functions and Fluid IntelligenceMuch of learning requires relating different concepts and transferring knowledge from a well understood domain to one that is unfamiliar (Bransford, Franks, Yve, & Sherwood, 1989; Goswami, 1992). Analogical reasoning is thus one of the most important abilities involved in making inferences about new phenomena, learning how to solve novel situations, and extracting relevant information from an experience on the basis of relational similarity (Chen, Sanchez, & Campbell, 1997; Richland, Morrison, & Holyoak, 2006). Past research suggests the existence of three factors underlying the age-related differences in analogical reasoning (see Richland et al., 2006). First, according to Goswami (1992), children as young as 3 years are able to derive correct analogies, provided they possess the relevant pre-existing domain knowledge. In contrast to the Piagetian notion of successive developmental stages, it may only be the lack of relevant conceptual knowledge that poses the primary constraint for analogical reasoning during early years. Second, some studies propose the existence of a "relational shift" from featural to relational similarities. According to this hypothesis, attribute matching precedes relation encoding while the developmental preference for the latter is context dependent and is driven by the knowledge of the given domain (Rattermann & Gentner, 1998). Third, as repeatedly shown, performance in analogical reasoning tasks can be explained by the efficiency of working memory (WM). Analogical reasoning requires extracting, maintaining and manipulating multiple relations simultaneously. Because these relations need to be processed at the same time, there is an inherent need for a system that builds relational representations through temporary bindings between component representations (Oberauer, Sus, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, 2008), i.e., the WM. Indeed, WM seems to be strongly related to the ability of analogical reasoning (Cho, Holyoak, & Cannon, 2007) and to inductive reasoning in general (Kyllonen & Christal, 1990). Moreover, the processes involved in mapping multiple relations have been shown to be mediated by the same areas of prefrontal cortex as WM processes (Kroger, 2002). Present StudyAlthough there is quite a solid body of evidence regarding the processes underlying analogical reasoning as a static ability in discrete developmental stages, we still do not know much about the dynamic aspect of analogical reasoning, i.e., what processes are involved when the child actually learns to reason analogically. The question here is, what processes drive the individual differences in the development of analogical reasoning on a micro level within a specific learning situation? Analogical reasoning is itself a complex cognitive process and the additional demands associated with higher-order learning (internalizing the principles and acquiring novel response routines) induce the need for some regulatory processes that usually fall under the umbrella term executive functions (EF). EF refer to a family of top-down mental functions that control and organize mental processes and include functions like response inhibition and interference control, (set-)shifting, or WM (Diamond, 2013). Although, as mentioned above, the effect of WM on analogical reasoning has already been studied, it is not clear what role it takes when embedded within an explanatory structure of other relevant EF and fluid intelligence (gF). With regard to the structure of executive functioning and its dynamics during development, there is now a large body of evidence. Until approximately 9 years of age, diverse aspects of executive functioning have repeatedly been shown to follow a single dimension (Brydges, Reid, Fox, & Anderson, 2012; Wiebe, Espy, & Charak, 2008). A bit later, at the onset of adolescence, the former unitary executive functioning is consistently found to be manifested in diverse mental functions like inhibition, shifting, or WM (Lehto, Juujarvi, Kooistra, & Pulkkinen, 2003; Miyake et al. …