Frequent and popular, analogical thinking originates from the emergence of language, helping to understand the new, and construct senses and meanings. When related to comparisons, A&Ms are distinguished. The first theories on metaphors are from Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC). De Lima (2005, p. 10) indicates that Aristotle defines metaphor as “to carry to one thing the name of another, or from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from the species of one to the species of another, or by analogy”. Metaphors would constitute a creative act, allowing men to build knowledge by establishing them. Abbagnano (2007) refers to the Aristotelian definition of metaphor.

Regarding the concept of analogy, Abbagnano (2007, p. 55), in addition to quoting Aristotle, refers to Plato, presenting yet a second meaning: “probable extension of knowledge through the use of generic similarities that can be deduced between different situations”. De Almeida (2020) states that confusion about the meaning of analogy is recurrent. For Malheiro and Teixeira (2020, p. 319), analogy does not point to symmetrical equality, but “an assimilation with the intention of elucidating, structuring, and judging the subject through the forum”. Duit (1991) and Treagust et al. (1992) relate analogies to comparisons of similarities between a familiar and an unfamiliar domain. Duit (1991) points out their explicit nature. The A&Ms are essential thinking tools in cognition.

In this work, A&Ms are treated as cognitive, reasoning processes, comparisons of similarities between two domains, one known and one unknown: analogy compares explicitly while metaphor implicitly. An important tool, analogical reasoning is used by scientists to construct knowledge, with analogies being responsible for inferences that generate problem solutions. Yet, the spontaneous use of analogies hardly leads to reflection (De Almeida & Da Silva Diniz, 2021), making it “necessary to delimit which components of a concept are mapped into another” (Siman & Sampaio, 2021, p. 204).

As for metaphors, their understanding and explanation are complex activities (Couceiro Figueira, 2021). However, they’re transformed into analogy when the comparative aspects between the domains are clarified, facilitating their understanding. Nevertheless, transposition is not enough, being important their systematic and methodological treatment, which reduces attributing unwanted aspects to the comparison.

In 1980, Lakoff and Johnson first published the book Metaphors We Live By, which was translated into Portuguese only in 2002. There, the authors presented the “Conceptual Metaphor Theory”, in which the understanding of an idea or domain can be done in function of another domain. For the authors, metaphors carry conceptions and influence thinking and reasoning, and everyday language is full of metaphorical conceptions that we do not always realize. An example would be the metaphor “time is money”. By establishing this conceptual metaphor, the domain “time” is now conceived as the domain “money”, influencing thoughts and actions. Thus, expressions and behaviors are established, such as: “saving” time, “spending” time, “gaining” time, “losing” time, etc. Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2002) did not establish relationships between the arguments of everyday life and those of scientific life, but Marcelos and Nagem (2010) recognize the presence of conceptual metaphors in science and its discourse. Furthermore, they point out that Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2002) indicated that so-called pure intellectual concepts, such as the concepts of a theory, for example, are often - perhaps always – based on metaphors.

Physical or virtual representations (drawings, models, animations, etc.) that show comparative relationships are classified by Nagem et al. (2022) as models. In this way, the authors corroborate Oliva (2019), for whom analogies are resources employed in model making and state, “models are analogical representations in constant motion” (Nagem et al., 2022, p. 71). Therefore, by partially representing entities of scientific interest, models can be called analogical, establishing relations of similarity between domains in which differences can also be relevant.

Marcelos and Nagem (2011) classify analogies as: structural – compares the morphology of the domains; functional – compares functions of the domains; zoomorphic – characteristics of living beings are granted to phenomena; frozen – used for a long time, consolidated, does not surprise the listener. It is to be assumed that zoomorphic analogies comprise only those involving animals. Thus, in this paper we use the term phytomorphic for plant analogies.

The comparison between the cognitive model and tree evokes the analogy between the Darwinian Theory of Evolution of living beings and a tree. This analogy was analyzed by Marcelos and Nagem (2010), generating eleven comparative charts containing structural and functional similarities and differences between the domains. In 2020, Santos resumed aspects of the analogy between a tree and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution of living things without extending the charts (Santos, 2020).

The charts were named by Marcelos and Nagem (2010) as “Comparative Structure Models of Similarities and Differences Between Vehicle and Target”. The term vehicle refers to the known domain of the analogy, i.e., the Tree, and the term target refers to the domain one wishes to understand, in this case, the Darwinian Theory of Evolution of living things. It is worth noting that there is a wide variety of terms available to describe the domains. The choice of the target term is due to its almost consensual character, while the choice of the vehicle term occurs because it refers to the idea of movement, which, according to Nagem et al. (2001), facilitates the understanding of the role of analogy in leading to the understanding of the target. The richness of the relationships established identified conceptual metaphors and evidenced the potential of the comparative structure.

The origin of the Comparative Structure Models of Similarities and Differences between Vehicle and Target lies in Education research, specifically in the Metodologia de Ensino Com Analogias (MECA, Methodology for Teaching With Analogies), developed by Nagem et al. (2001). One of the five steps of MECA is the construction of comparative charts in which similarities and differences are established between the vehicles and targets of the analogy being studied. Focus is directed at the similarities, as these characterize the analogy, but it is important to list the relevant differences to prevent the reader from attributing undesirable and irrelevant characteristics of the vehicle to the target.

When the charts were given the status of models in the work of Marcelos and Nagem (2010), they pointed out the possibility of using the same structure to analyze comparisons between domains in any area of knowledge and context, including Psychology. It is, therefore, a strategy for systematized and methodological analysis of analogies that can be used to analyze the relations of similarity and difference between a tree and the cognitive model of CBT.

Ferry and Paula (2017, p. 30) present a mapping of the structure of analogies, which originates from Cognitive Psychology and is employed in Education research for the “understanding of the use of comparisons in the teaching and learning processes of scientific subjects”. The following year, Ferry et al. (2018), without refuting MECA, discussed the role of differences in analogies, highlighting that, like similarities, they can also provide gains in concept assimilation. Barbosa and Ferry (2018) developed a software to facilitate the reading of the processes of analysis of structural characteristics of comparisons – the Sistema Para Mapamento Estrutural de Analogias (MAPES, System for Structural Mapping of Analogies). In this way, it is feasible to analyze and highlight the complexity of the structure of similar relations placed in correspondence in an analogy, such as those that make up the Comparative Structure Models of Similarities and Differences between Vehicle and Target.

In addition to the works mentioned, the comparative similarity and difference charts, before or after acquiring the status of models, have been employed and corroborated in other research on teaching. However, no references to the development of these types of charts were found outside the educational context, including in the field of Psychology.

Authored by Aaron T. Beck in the 1960s, CBT emerged premising problem solving in a cooperative therapist/patient alliance, distinguishing itself by being of empirical inquiry and reality testing. Beck (2019), Aaron Beck’s daughter, clarifies that cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy was designed for the treatment of depression, associated with distorted thoughts and beliefs. In his works, Aaron Beck noted the cognitive conceptualization of depression related to a negative way of thinking of patients.

Simple, directive, and pragmatic, CBT is “structured, short-term, present-oriented, directed toward current problem solving, modification of dysfunctional (inappropriate and or unhelpful) thoughts and behaviors” (Beck, 2019, p. 22). It relies on the cognitive model, with “a person’s emotions, behaviors, and physiology being influenced by their perceptions of events” (Beck, 2019, p. 50). Behaviors and emotions relate to cognitions (thoughts), determining perceptions of ourselves, others, and the world.

In formulating the cognitive-behavioral model of a patient, it is possible to observe the reported EVENT, the COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT where the personal interpretation is triggered by the activation of beliefs, the EMOTION felt from the perception, generating the BEHAVIOR, which is coherent to the cognitive assessment. From the cognitive assessment, thoughts arise, which are divided into three levels: Core/Central Beliefs (CBs), Intermediate Beliefs (IBs), and Automatic Thoughts (Ats), composing a belief system that leads to the cognitive assessment.

The CBs form the deepest level of cognition, consisting of beliefs about oneself, the world, and other people. Developed mainly during childhood, they depend on the subject’s experiences. Global, rigid, inflexible, overgeneralized, they influence the emergence of intermediate beliefs. The IBs are rules and statements created by the individual as attempts to make life more “functional”, within the way he sees himself, his environment, and his future. They are attempts to deal with the CBs. The ATs are the first that come before a fact. Common to all of us, they are not random, bearing content from our life history.

The primary goal of CBT is to produce changes in patients’ thoughts and meaning (beliefs) systems, evoking lasting emotional and behavioral transformation. Based on a continuously developing formulation of the patient and their problems in cognitive terms, CBT requires a secure therapeutic alliance, defined by Ramos et al. (2021) as collaboration between therapist and client, and emphasizes active patient collaboration and participation. The cognitive-behavioral model, assisting in the identification of problems reported by patients, shifts the focus away from events and places it on how the patient interprets them, allowing perception of dysfunctional thoughts. Once such thoughts are perceived, there is the need to modify them, seeking to install realistic adaptive mental patterns that lead to positive changes in the emotional state that will reflect in behavioral changes. It should be emphasized that dysfunctional thoughts underlie all psychological disorders.

Therefore, a patient’s cognitive assessment, that is, their beliefs and behavioral developments, should be the target of attention of therapists who, by understanding it, will be able to aim for cognitive change that will impact their feelings and behavior. By elaborating Comparative Structure Models between the tree Vehicle and the cognitive model Target, it establishes the possibility, through the analysis of similarities and differences, of contributions to the comprehension of the characteristics of the cognitive model’s levels of thinking. By extension, it is to be assumed that it may aid in the understanding of the patient’s cognitive assessment, an assumption that is subject to further verification, being that it isn’t the object of this work.

This research is qualitative, exploratory in nature, with documentary analysis, grounded in the theoretical framework on A&Ms and in Beck (2019).

The results of the research corroborate the hypothesis that gave rise to this research: the comparison between cognitive model and tree constitutes a conceptual metaphor, that is, the conception that “the cognitive model is structured like a tree,” leading to the transposition of characteristics of the parts of a tree to the cognitive model. The elaboration of the tables shows us that there are more similarities and differences between the domains than what was found in materials on the Internet. We considered that, while several of the relationships we established would be possible to be elaborated by Psychology professionals with an attentive eye, others would require a greater biological knowledge about the characteristics of trees, going beyond psychologists’ field of knowledge. However, this fact does not invalidate the exercise of establishing relationships between vehicles and targets, of seeking to understand them and employ them to understand the cognitive model.

Regarding the domains, we emphasize that an analogy does not point to symmetrical equality. Target and vehicle are not identical, and if they were, they would constitute the same object, not distinct objects. Thus, differences do not invalidate analogy.

As stated earlier, the fact that the root is single and branched while the CBs are many, and the same occurs in the trunk/IBs relationship, can give rise to surreal tree analogical models. We therefore suggest that it is more appropriate to think of the cognitive model not as a single tree, but as a forest. In each tree, the root would correspond to a single CB and the trunk to a single IB.

We emphasize that the charts are not finished works, but under construction. The presence of blank spaces and lines to be filled in reveals the possibility of establishing other similarities and differences according to the cognitive or experiential potential of the individuals, enriching the analysis.

Likewise, other comparative charts can be established using possible relations between the cognitive model and other parts of a tree that were not explored in this manuscript, such as: flowers, fruits, seeds, etc.

We emphasize that by analyzing the analogy and building the charts, both aspects of the target and the vehicle are clarified. In this way, the use of Comparative Structure Models enhances the understanding of the whole analogy, going beyond its initial goal of making the target more understandable.

Finally, as future considerations, our next step will be to use the MAPES system to map the established relationships, aiming to analyze and highlight their complexity. Later, we will verify how cognitive-behavioral clinical psychologists evaluate the established relations and we will seek to examine if they can impact the therapeutic perception of the cognitive evaluation of patients. We foresee that, in this way, possibilities for the elaboration of materials may be opened, be they analogical models, videos, or texts that may present greater relations between these vehicles and targets, helping in the understanding of the characteristics of the levels of thought of the cognitive model.