The effects of surface and structural feature matches on the access of story analogs.

Competing theories of analogical reasoning have disagreed on the relative contributions of surface and structural features to the access of previously read base stories when one is reading a current cue story. A key limitation of the prior work was that surface and structural feature overlap between bases and cues was not manipulated precisely. The present study systematically manipulated the number of surface and structural matches to determine their relative effect on access. Results involving reminding and reading-time measures suggest that surface and lower-order structural features affected access about equally, at least when a higher-order relation (HOR) was shared between a base and cue story. When a HOR was not shared, surface feature overlap continued to affect access while lower-order structural features had a less reliable effect. Models of access might need to be adjusted to account for these phenomena.

[1]  S. Read,et al.  This reminds me of the time when …: Expectation failures in reminding and explanation , 1991 .

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

[3]  M. Bassok,et al.  Judging a book by its cover: Interpretative effects of content on problem-solving transfer , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[4]  J. D. Murray,et al.  Forward Inferences: From Activation to Long-Term Memory. , 1999 .

[5]  Mark T. Keane.  What makes an analogy difficult? The effects of order and causal structure on analogical mapping. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. , 1987 .

[7]  Kristian J. Hammond,et al.  Functionality in Analogical Transfer: A Hard Match is Good to Find , 1991 .

[8]  C. Clement,et al.  The Effects of Manifest Relational Similarity on Analog Retrieval , 1994 .

[9]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence , 1996 .

[10]  R. Catrambone.  The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. , 1998 .

[11]  A. Ortony,et al.  Similarity and Analogical Reasoning , 1991 .

[12]  M. Castillo,et al.  On-line predictive inferences in reading: Processing timeduring versusafter the priming context , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[13]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. , 1989 .

[14]  M. Lassaline,et al.  Structural alignment in induction and similarity. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[16]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  The time course and durability of predictive inferences , 1993 .

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

[18]  Mary Utter,et al.  Structural alignment in induction and similarity , 1996 .

[19]  B. Ross.  This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. , 1987 .

[20]  S A Duffy,et al.  Role of expectations in sentence integration. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  B. Ross.  Distinguishing Types of Superficial Similarities: Different Effects on the Access and Use of Earlier Problems , 1989 .

[22]  K Rayner,et al.  Elaborative inferences during reading: do they occur on-line? , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[24]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Inferences about predictable events. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Inference during reading. , 1992, Psychological review.

[26]  Zhe Chen,et al.  Analogical transfer: From schematic pictures to problem solving , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[27]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analog Wetrieval by Constraint Satisfaction , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[28]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Mathematical problem solving by analogy. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

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

[32]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons : some powerful and practicable procedures , 1991 .

[33]  K. Dunbar,et al.  How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[34]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  When comprehension difficulty improves memory for text. , 1985 .

[35]  J. Shaffer.  Modified Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedures , 1986 .

[36]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. , 1994, Psychological review.

[37]  Lauretta M. Reeves,et al.  The Role of Content and Abstract Information in Analogical Transfer , 1994 .

[38]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  A structure-mapping model for word problems. , 1987 .

[39]  D. Gentner.  Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[40]  D. Gentner,et al.  Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity , 1982 .

[41]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

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