The present study tackles two overlooked aspects of analogical retrieval: (a) whether argumentation activities elicit a spontaneous search for analogical sources, and (b) whether strategic search can relax the superficial bias typically obtained in experimental studies of analogical retrieval. In Experiment 1, participants had to generate arguments for a target situation under three conditions: without indication to use analogies, with indication to use analogies, and with indication to search for sources within domains provided by the experimenters. Results showed that while voluntary search yields analogical retrievals reliably, the argumentation activity seldom elicits spontaneous remindings. A second set of results demonstrated that the superficial bias can be strategically relaxed, leading to a majority of distant retrievals. Experiment 2 replicated this result with the instruction to search within domains different from that of the target, and without providing a list of specific domains. The theoretical and educational implications of these findings are discussed.
AhnW. K., BrewerW. F., & MooneyR. J. (1992). Schema acquisition from a single example. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(2), 391–412.
2.
BlanchetteI., & DunbarK. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28, 108–124.
3.
BlanchetteI., & DunbarK. (2001). Analogy use in naturalistic settings: The influence of audience, emotion, and goals. Memory & Cognition, 29, 730–735.
4.
CatramboneR., & HolyoakK. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1147–1156.
5.
ChenZ., MoL., & HonomichlR. (2004). Having the memory of an elephant: Long-term retrieval and the use of analogues in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 415–433.
6.
ChristensenB. T., & SchunnC. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35, 29–38.
7.
ClementC., MawbyR., & GilesD. (1994). The effects of manifest relational similarity on analog retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 396–420.
8.
DunbarK. (2001). The analogical paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings, yet so difficult in the psychology laboratory? In GentnerD., HolyoakK. J., & KokinovB. (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 313–334). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
9.
ForbusK., GentnerD., & LawK. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141–205.
10.
GentnerD. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.
11.
GentnerD. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In VosniadouS. & OrtonyA. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). London: Cambridge University Press.
12.
GentnerD., & ForbusK. D. (1991). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based access and mapping. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 504–509). New York, NY: ACM.
GentnerD., & MarkmanA. B. (2006). Defining structural similarity. The Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 1–20.
15.
GentnerD., & MedinaJ. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263–297.
16.
GentnerD., RattermannM. J., & ForbusK. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524–575.
17.
GentnerD., & SmithL. A. (2013). Analogical learning and reasoning. In ReisbergD. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 668–681). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
GickM. L., & HolyoakK. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.
19.
GoldstoneR. L., & SonJ. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69–110.
20.
GoldstoneR. L., & WilenskyU. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 465–516.
21.
HofstadterD., & SanderE. (2013). Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.
22.
HolyoakK. J. (2005). Analogy. In HolyoakK. J. & MorrisonR. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117–142). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HolyoakK. J., & KohK. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15, 332–340.
24.
HolyoakK. J., NovickL. R., & MelzE. R. (1994). Component processes in analogical transfer: Mapping, pattern completion, and adaptation. In HolyoakK. J. & BarndenJ. A. (Eds.), Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory (Vol. 2, pp. 113–180). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
HolyoakK. J., & ThagardP. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
HummelJ. E., & HolyoakK. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427–466.
28.
KeaneM. T. (1987). On retrieving analogues when solving problems. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 39, 29–41.
29.
KretzD. R., & KrawczykD. C. (2014). Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1333. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01333
30.
KurtzK., & LoewensteinJ. (2007). Converging on a new role for analogy in problem solving and retrieval: When two problems are better than one. Memory & Cognition, 35, 334–341.
31.
LoewensteinJ. (2010). How one's hook is baited matters for catching an analogy. In RossB. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 53, pp. 149–182). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
32.
MaceJ. H. (2010). Involuntary remembering and voluntary remembering: How different are they? In MaceJ. H. (Ed.), The act of remembering: Toward an understanding of how we recall the past (pp. 41–55). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
33.
MinervinoR., OberholzerN., & TrenchM. (2013). Overall similarity overrides element similarity when evaluating the quality of analogies. Journal of Cognitive Science, 14(3), 287–317.
34.
RichlandL. E., HolyoakK. J., & StiglerJ. W. (2004). Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 37–60.
35.
RipollT. (1998). Why this makes me think of that. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 15–43.
36.
SchwartzD. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.
37.
ThagardP., HolyoakK., NelsonG., & GochfeldD. (1990). Analog retrieval by constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 259–310.
38.
TrenchM., & MinervinoR. (2014). The role of surface similarity in analogical retrieval: Bridging the gap between the naturalistic and the experimental traditions. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/cogs.12201
39.
TrenchM., OberholzerN., & MinervinoR. (2009). Dissolving the analogical paradox: Retrieval under a production paradigm is highly constrained by superficial similarity. In KokinovB., HolyoakK. & GentnerD. (Eds.), New frontiers in analogy research (pp. 443–452). Sofia: NBU Press.
40.
TrenchM., OlguínV., & MinervinoR. (2011). Mammoth cloning reminds us of “Jurassic Park” but storm replication does not: Naturalistic settings do not aid the retrieval of distant analogs. In C. Hoelscher, T. F. Shipley, y. L. Carlson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2649–2654). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
