Analogical reasoning is a landmark of human cognition. Based on the realization that the elements of two situations are organized by similar systems of relations, analogical inferences allow the transfer of knowledge structures from a better-known situation (the base analog) to a target situation that is relatively less understood (the target analog).
Experimental research has demonstrated that the retrieval of base analogs from long term memory in response to the proceesing of a target analog is infrequent in the lack of semantic similarities between both situations (Gick and Holyoak, 1980; Keane, 1987; Gentner et al., 1993; Trench and Minervino, 2014). With the turn of the century, several naturalistic observations of experts working in their domains of expertise yielded a more complex picture. While molecular biologists (Dunbar, 1997) and psychologists (Saner and Schunn, 1999) still exhibited mostly within-domain analogizing, the observation of journalists and politicians (Blanchette and Dunbar, 2001), teachers (Richland et al., 2004), managers (Bearman et al., 2007) and design engineers (Christensen and Schunn, 2007) showed a more frequent use of long-distance analogies. The naturalistic study by Kretz and Krawczyk (2014) on the use of analogies by economists also demonstrates an abundance of distant analogies in the sevice of an impressive variety of communicative purposes, most of which were not evident in prior research. These goals included the generation of concrete source examples of more general target concepts, the formation of visual images of source concepts, the addition of colorful speech, the inclusion of a target into a source concept, or the differentiation between source and target concepts. With these results in mind, the time is ripe to assert that the naturalistic observation of experts shows a more flexible use of analogical sources than is predicted by experimental studies on analogical transfer, and simulated by dominant computer models of analogical retrieval (e.g., MAC/FAC, Forbus et al., 1995; LISA, Hummel and Holyoak, 1997). How, then, to explain this analogical abundance? In trying to account for the contrasting results of the experimental and the naturalistic traditions, the default explanations revolve around the expertise of the analogizers and the psychological constraints of the target tasks. I will argue that although both factors are likely to bear some responsibility for this empirical inconsistency, there are reasons to expect a heavier weight of the latter.
The expertise of the analogizers
Shortly after having documented that journalists and politicians generated mostly distant analogies when arguing for (or against) the referendum on the independence of Quebec, Blanchette and Dunbar (2000) obtained an in vitro replication of this result with novice participants generating their own analogies for another realistic political topic: the zero-deficit strategy for controlling public debt. The authors concluded that their prior results were due to the fact that the analogizers were generating their own analogies for a realistic situation, rather than to their expertise in the target issue. Trench et al. (2009a) provided support for this interpretation by replicating Blanchette and Dunbar's results with 10 different target topics. In the same vein, Bearman et al. (2007) failed to observe differences in the analogies proposed by novices and experts solving management problems. Rather than based on broad expertise differences across-participants, it seems that the ease of generating distant analogies depends on the goals of the analogizer and on the extent to which she understands the target analog at stake. When the analogizer comprehends the target analog better than her intended audience, as in communicative situations such as explaining a procedure to students (Richland et al., 2004) or selling political ideas to the population (Blanchette and Dunbar, 2000, 2001; Trench et al., 2009a), both experts and novices easily generate distant analogies. But when the target analog is insufficiently understood, as when Dunbar's (1997) expert molecular biologists or Gick and Holyoak's (1980) novice participants are attempting to solve a problem, distant analogies are seldom generated.
Psychological constraints of the target task
Another explanation for the frequent use of distant analogies in naturalistic studies might arise from comparing the psychological constraints of naturalistic analogy generation against those of classical experimental studies. The standard experimental procedure comprises an encoding phase, during which participants learn the base analogs, and a transfer phase, where experimenters present participants with either a semantically close or a semanically distant target situation, and assess whether its processing elicits the spontaneous retrieval of the base analog. Based on this procedure, differences accross conditions were typically taken to demonstrate the centrality of surface similarities during analogical transfer. In contrast with this highly controlled environment—in which transfer can only originate in the retrieval of the critical base analog from memory—in naturalistic settings participants are free to generate analogies by means of retrieving their own base analogs (Blanchette and Dunbar, 2000; Hofstadter and Sander, 2013), identifying conceptual metaphors (Minervino et al., 2009), stumbling across suitable analogs in the external environment (Christensen and Schunn, 2005) or fabricating novel base analogs either by generating extreme cases out of the target analog (Clement, 1988), or by reinstantiating the relational structure of the target with a new set of elements (Olguín et al., 2013). Upon generating candidate analogies via any combination of such mechanisms, the proportion of close vs. distant analogies that people produce in naturalistic settings can also reflect a conscious editing of one type of analogies in favor of the other type, depending on the purpose of the reasoner (Trench et al., 2009b).
The fact that the core components of our retrieval mechanisms are invariably set to favor semantically close base analogs (Gentner et al., 1993; Trench and Minervino, 2014) suggests that the abovementioned generative mechanisms could possibly account for the frequency and the diversity of the analogies generated by experts. Future studies, both naturalistic and experimental, are required to understand how these overlooked analogy generation methods interact with the variety of goals that realistic analogy generation can pursue, as eloquently revealed by Kretz and Krawczyk's (2014) detailed analysis of the analogies produced by expert economists.
Statements
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants PICT 2352 and PICT 2650 from the National Agency for Scientific and Technical Research of Argentina (ANPCyT), grant C108 from National University of Comahue and grant PIB013 from Universidad Abierta Interamericana.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
BearmanC. R.BallL. J.OrmerodT. C. (2007). The structure and function of spontaneous analogizing in domain-based problem solving. Think. Reason. 13, 273–294. 10.1080/13546780600989686
2
BlanchetteI.DunbarK. (2000). How analogies are generated: the roles of structural and superficial similarity. Mem. Cognit. 28, 108–124. 10.3758/BF03211580
3
BlanchetteI.DunbarK. (2001). Analogy use in naturalistic settings: the influence of audience, emotion, and goals. Mem. Cogn. 29, 730–735. 10.3758/BF03200475
4
ChristensenB. T.SchunnC. D. (2005). Spontaneous access and analogical incubation effects. Creat. Res. J. 17, 207–220. 10.1080/10400419.2005.9651480
5
ChristensenB. T.SchunnC. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: the case of engineering design. Mem. Cogn. 35, 29–38. 10.3758/BF03195939
6
ClementJ. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cogn. Sci. 12, 563–586. 10.1207/s15516709cog1204_3
7
DunbarK. (1997). How scientists think: online creativity and conceptual change in science, in Creative Thought: An Investigation on Conceptual Structures and Processes, eds WardT. B.SmithS. M.VaidS. (Washington, DC: APA Press), 461–493.
8
ForbusK.GentnerD.LawK. (1995). MAC/FAC: a model of similarity-based retrieval. Cogn. Sci. 19, 141–204. 10.1207/s15516709cog1902_1
9
GentnerD.RattermannM. J.ForbusK. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cogn. Psychol. 25, 431–467. 10.1006/cogp.1993.1013
10
GickM.HolyoakK. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cogn. Psychol. 12, 306–35510.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4
11
HofstadterD.SanderE. (2013). Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York, NY: Basic Books.
12
HummelJ. E.HolyoakK. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: a theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychol. Rev. 104, 427–466. 10.1037/0033-295X.104.3.427
13
KeaneM. T. (1987). On retrieving analogues when solving problems. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 39, 29–41. 10.1080/02724988743000015
14
KretzD.KrawczykD. C. (2014). Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting. Front. Psychol. 5:1333. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01333
15
MinervinoR.López PellA.OberholzerN.TrenchM. (2009). A continuist approach to promoting creativity: generating novel metaphorical expressions through varying conceptual metaphors, in New Frontiers in Analogy Research, eds KokinovB.GentnerD.HolyoakK. (Sofia: NBU Press), 330–337.
16
OlguínV.TrenchM.MinervinoR. (2013). Promoting interdomain analogical transfer: when creating a problem helps solving a problem, in Poster Presented at Analogy 2013 (Dijon).
17
RichlandL. E.HolyoakK. J.StiglerJ. W. (2004). Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cogn. Instr. 22, 37–60. 10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_2
18
SanerL.SchunnC. D. (1999). Analogies out of the blue: when history seems to retell itself, in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds HahnM.StonessS. (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 619–624.
19
TrenchM.MinervinoR. (2014). The role of surface similarity in analogical retrieval: Bridging the gap between the naturalistic and the experimental traditions. Cogn. Sci. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1111/cogs.12201
20
TrenchM.OberholzerN.AdroverF.MinervinoR. (2009a). La eficacia del paradigma de producción para promover la recuperación de análogos base interdominio. Psykhé18, 39–48. 10.4067/S0718-22282009000100004
21
TrenchM.OberholzerN.MinervinoR. (2009b). Dissolving the analogical paradox: retrieval under a production paradigm is highly constrained by superficial similarity, in New Frontiers in Analogy Research, eds KokinovB.GentnerD.HolyoakK. (Sofia: NBU), 443–452.
Summary
Keywords
analogy, naturalistic settings, experts, surface similarty, retrieval
Citation
Trench M (2014) Explaining the abundance of distant analogies in naturalistic observations of experts. Front. Psychol. 5:1487. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01487
Received
10 November 2014
Accepted
03 December 2014
Published
22 December 2014
Volume
5 - 2014
Edited by
Guillermo Campitelli, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Reviewed by
Daniel C. Krawczyk, The University of Texas at Dallas and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, USA
Copyright
© 2014 Trench.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: maximo.trench@crub.uncoma.edu.ar
This article was submitted to Cognition, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.