Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The Structure and Function of Spontaneous Analogising in Domain-Based Problem Solving.

By C.R. Bearman, L.J. Ball and T.C. Ormerod

Abstract

Laboratory-based studies of problem solving suggest that transfer of solution principles from an analogue to a target arises only minimally without the presence of directive hints. Recently, however, real-world studies indicate that experts frequently and spontaneously use analogies in domain-based problem solving. There is also some evidence that in certain circumstances domain novices can draw analogies designed to illustrate arguments. It is less clear, however, whether domain novices can invoke analogies in the sophisticated manner of experts to enable them to progress problem solving. In the current study groups of novices and experts tackled large-scale management problems. Spontaneous analogising was observed in both conditions, with no marked differences between expertise levels in the frequency, structure or function of analogising. On average four analogies were generated by groups per hour, with significantly more relational mappings between analogue and target being produced than superficial object-and-attribute mappings. Analogising served two different purposes: problem solving (dominated by relational mappings), and illustration (which for novices was dominated by object-and-attribute mappings). Overall, our novices showed a sophistication in domain-based analogical reasoning that is usually only observed with experts, in addition to a sensitivity to the pragmatics of analogy use

Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lancs.ac.uk:973
Provided by: Lancaster E-Prints

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2001). Accessing source information in analogical problem-solving. doi
  2. (1983). Analogical connections: The essence of creativity. doi
  3. (1980). Analogical problem solving. doi
  4. (1992). Analogical reasoning and conceptual complexity in cognitive development. doi
  5. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity and expertise. doi
  6. (1990). Analogue retrieval by constraint satisfaction. doi
  7. (2004). Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. doi
  8. (2001). Analogy use in naturalistic settings: The influence of audience, emotion, and goals. doi
  9. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, doi
  10. (1996). Ballygowan Springs into New Age Kisqua. In
  11. (1994). Below the surface: Analogical similarity and retrieval competition in reminding. doi
  12. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. doi
  13. (2004). Cognitive strategies in the case analysis method.
  14. (1977). Component processes in analogical reasoning. doi
  15. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. doi
  16. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. doi
  17. (1990). European Case Clearing House Collection. Bearman The Structure and Function
  18. (2002). Graham Stewart:
  19. (2000). Holmesafe Ltd. Cranfield, UK: European Case Clearing House Collection.
  20. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. doi
  21. (1986). Induction, Processes of inference, learning and discovery. doi
  22. (2000). Jim Olson.
  23. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach.
  24. (1995). Life story research. In doi
  25. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. doi
  26. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. doi
  27. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. doi
  28. (1987). On retrieving analogues when solving problems. doi
  29. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. doi
  30. (1999). Petrol Retailing in Europe: The UK market. Cranfield, UK: European Case Clearing House Collection.
  31. (1989). Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In
  32. (2000). Purchasing Co-Op.
  33. (1977). Representation of knowledge. In
  34. (1938). Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage Raven,
  35. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bearman The Structure and Function
  36. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In doi
  37. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. doi
  38. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: A comparative analysis of experts and novices. doi
  39. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. doi
  40. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. doi
  41. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. doi
  42. (2001). The analogy paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings, yet so difficult in the psychological laboratory. In
  43. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi
  44. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy. doi
  45. (2002). The role of analogy in teaching middle school mathematics. In
  46. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. doi
  47. (1995). The Structure and Function Footnotes 1 Some of our following examples of predicate structures and analogical mappings are derived from those presented in Holyoak and Thagard
  48. (1989). The structure mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. doi
  49. (1993). The use of analogy in legal argument: Problem similarity, precedent and expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, doi
  50. (2001). The use of diagrams in analogical problem solving. doi
  51. (1980). Transfer effects in a problem solving context. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.