Map the relational structure, not the surface features

Ask what relationships are shared between domains, not just what objects look similar.

Why it works

Gentner’s structure-mapping theory shows that effective analogies depend on mapping relational predicates (X causes Y; X precedes Y) rather than object attributes (both are round; both are large). Surface-feature matches feel compelling but often mislead; structural matches are the ones that carry real predictive power. When you consciously ask "what relationships are shared?" rather than "what looks similar?" you engage the part of cognition that produces reliable cross-domain transfer.

How to do it

1. Identify the domain you understand well (the "base") and the new domain (the "target").
2. For the base domain, write the key relationships: "A causes B," "C depends on D."
3. Ask whether those same relationships hold in the target domain, not whether the objects look alike.
4. Only conclude the analogy is valid if the relationship structure maps — discard it if only surface features match.

Evidence

Gentner’s structure-mapping research, including experimental work with children and adults, shows that relational similarity drives analogical inference more reliably than surface similarity. Structural mapping predicts which analogies lead to correct inferences. (observational)

Structure-mapping describes how good analogies work; applying it consciously requires practice and explicit knowledge of the base domain’s relational structure.

Sources

• Gentner (1983), "Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy," Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170

Common mistake

Accepting an analogy because it feels compelling — usually because of surface similarity — without checking whether the underlying relationships are actually shared.