Facilitation and analogical transfer in the THOG task

Koenig, Cvnthia S.; Griggs, Richard A.

doi:10.1080/13546780342000070

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their explanation of the improved performance relies on what Evans (2003) refers to as System 2 reasoning-deliberate consideration of the logical structure of the problem. If this explanation is correct, then participants should be able to demonstrate their understanding of the problem by exhibiting analogical transfer like that seen in studies examining the Pythagoras THOG (Needham and Amado, 1995;Koenig and Griggs, 2004a) and the Blackboard THOG (Koenig and Griggs, 2004b). In contrast, Griggs et al (1998) argue that the facilitation is due to an attentional heuristic and, therefore, relies on what Evans refers to as System 1 reasoning-a lower level automatic perceptual process that is driven by surface characteristics of the problem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Using dual-process theory and analogical transfer to explain facilitation on a hypothetico-deductive reasoning task

Koenig

Platt

Griggs

2006

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the analogical transfer paradigm, the present study investigated the competing explanations of Girotto and Legrenzi (Psychological Research 51: 129-135, 1993) and Griggs, Platt, Newstead, and Jackson (Thinking and Reasoning 4: 1-14, 1998) for facilitation on the SARS version of the THOG problem, a hypothetico-deductive reasoning task. Girotto and Legrenzi argue that facilitation is based on logical analysis of the task [System 2 reasoning in Evans's (Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 454-459, 2003) dual-process account of reasoning] while Griggs et al. maintain that facilitation is due to an attentional heuristic produced by the wording of the problem (System 1 reasoning). If Girotto and Legrenzi are correct, then System 2 reasoning, which is volitional and responsible for deductive reasoning, should be elicited, and participants should comprehend the solution principle of the THOG task and exhibit analogical transfer. However, if Griggs et al. are correct, then System 1 reasoning, which is responsible for heuristic problem solving strategies such as an attentional heuristic, should occur, and participants should not abstract the solution principle and transfer should not occur. Significant facilitation (68 and 82% correct) was only observed for the two SARS source problems, but significant analogical transfer did not occur. This lack of transfer suggests that System 1 reasoning was responsible for the facilitation observed in the SARS problem, supporting Griggs et al.'s attentional heuristic explanation. The present results also underscore the explanatory value of using analogical transfer rather than facilitation as the criterion for problem understanding.

show abstract