Below the Surface: Analogical Similarity and Retrieval Competition in Reminding

Wharton, Charles M.; Holyoak, Keith J.; Downing, Paul E.; Lange, Trent E.; Wickens, Thomas D.; Melz, Eric

doi:10.1006/cogp.1994.1003

Cited by 86 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As in prior studies of analogical retrieval, we provided participants with a set of examples and then cued them with analogous examples (e.g., Catrambone, 2002;Gentner et al, 1993;Wharton et al, 1994). Participants were given a set of negotiation examples, including one contingent contract example.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviving Inert Knowledge: Analogical Abstraction Supports Relational Retrieval of Past Events

Gentner¹,

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present five experiments and simulation studies to establish late analogical abstraction as a new psychological phenomenon: Schema abstraction from analogical examples can revive otherwise inert knowledge. We find that comparing two analogous examples of negotiations at recall time promotes retrieving analogical matches stored in memory-a notoriously elusive effect. Another innovation in this research is that we show parallel effects for real-life autobiographical memory (Experiments 1-3) and for a controlled memory set (Experiments 4 and 5). Simulation studies show that a unified model based on schema abstraction can capture backward (retrieval) effects as well as forward (transfer) effects.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviving Inert Knowledge: Analogical Abstraction Supports Relational Retrieval of Past Events

Gentner¹,

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although people often fail to be reminded of analogous problems involvingdissimilar objects and dissimilar relations (Gick & Holyoak, 1980), similar relations do seem to facilitate memory access during problem solving (Gentner, Ratterman, & Forbus, 1993;Holyoak & Koh, 1987;Keane, 1988;Ross, 1987Ross, , 1989Wharton et al, 1994;Wharton, Holyoak, & Lange, 1996) and may facilitate problem solving even without awareness of the analog in memory (Schunn & Dunbar, 1996). In fact, people seem to be able to use semantic relations to generate analogs that are superficially dissimilar to a familiar problem (Blanchette & Dunbar, 2000).…”

Section: Semantic Relations In Analogymentioning

confidence: 99%

Analogical priming via semantic relations

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on semantic memory has often tacitly treated semantic relations as simple conduits for spreading activation between associated object concepts, rather than as integral components of semantic organization. Yet conceptual relations, and the role bindings they impose on the objects they relate, are central to such cognitive tasks as discourse comprehension, inference, problem solving, and analogical reasoning. The present study addresses the question of whether semantic relations and their bindings can influence access to semantic memory. The experiments investigated whether, and under what conditions, presenting a prime pair of words linked by 1 of 10 common semantic relations would facilitate processing of a target pair of words linked by the same relation. No effect was observed when participants merely read the prime; however, relational priming was observed under instructions to note and use the semantic relations. Participants were faster at making a lexical decision or naming a word on a related pair of target words when that pair was primed with an analogously related pair of words than when the prime pair consisted of either two unrelated words or two words linked by some other relation. This evidence of analogical priming suggests that under an appropriate strategic set, lexical decisions and naming latencies can be influenced by a process akin to analogical mapping.

show abstract

“…To do so, it must involve structural representations and processes that operate to align them (Barnden, 1994;Gentner & Markman, 1994a, b;Goldstone et al, 1991;Holyoak et al, 1994;Keane, 1988aKeane, , 1988bMarkman & Gentner, 1993a, 1993bMedin et al, 1993;Reed, 1987;Reeves & Weisberg, 1994). This would seem to require abandoning some highly inff uential models of similarity: for example, modeling similarity as the intersection of independent feature sets or as the dot product of feature vectors.…”

Section: Structure-mapping and The Typology Of Similaritymentioning

confidence: 99%