How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity

Laboratory studies of analogical reasoning have shown that subjects are mostly influenced by superficial similarity in the retrieval of source analogs. However, real-world investigations have demonstrated that people generate analogies using deep structural features. We conducted three experiments to determine why laboratory and real-world studies have yielded different results. In the first two experiments, we used a “production paradigm” in which subjects were asked to generate sources for a given target. Results show that the majority of the analogies that were generated displayed low levels of superficial similarity with the target problem. Moreover, most of the analogies were based on complex underlying structures. The third experiment used a “reception paradigm” methodology. The subjects had to retrieve predetermined sources instead of generate their own. In this case, retrieval was largely constrained by surface similarity. We conclude that people can use structural relations when given an appropriate task and that this ability has been underestimated in previous research on analogy.

[1]  L. Frank The Society for Research in Child Development , 1935 .

[2]  William M. Smith,et al.  A Study of Thinking , 1956 .

[3]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Analogical problem solving , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  Mark T. Keane On Retrieving Analogues When Solving Problems , 1987 .

[5]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Systematicity as a Selection Constraint in Analogical Mapping , 1991, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  The Roles of Similarity in Transfer: Separating Retrievability From Inferential Soundness , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  T. B. Ward Structured Imagination: the Role of Category Structure in Exemplar Generation , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  T. E. Lange,et al.  Below the Surface: Analogical Similarity and Retrieval Competition in Reminding , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  Mark T. Keane Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought , 1994 .

[12]  N. Charness,et al.  Expert Performance Its Structure and Acquisition , 2002 .

[13]  Stephen H. Baer Mental leaps: Keith J. Holyoak and Paul Thagard Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 265 pp., $24.95, hardcover , 1995 .

[14]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  K. Dunbar HOW SCIENTISTS REALLY REASON: SCIENTIFIC REASONING IN REAL-WORLD LABORATORIES , 1995 .

[16]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Pragmatics in Analogical Mapping , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[18]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The analogical mind. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[19]  K. Dunbar How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. , 1997 .

[20]  Miriam Bassok,et al.  Adding Apples and Oranges: Alignment of Semantic and Formal Knowledge , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.