Analogical problem solving

May combine two claims.

Two subjects in the Tunnel condition who produced the dispersion solution did so after first spontaneously remarking that the general might have sent his men down multiple roads; one Open Supply Route subject also suggested the dispersion solution to the military problem but failed to apply it to the radiation problem.

“Two subjects in the Tunnel condition who produced the dispersion solution did so after first spontaneously remarking that the general might have sent his men down multiple roads.One other subject, in the Open Supply Route condition, also suggested the dispersion solution to the military problem, but failed to apply it to the radiation problem.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment I, 80% of subjects in the Tunnel condition produced operation solutions, compared with 43% in all other conditions, a significant difference.

“Eighty percent of subjects in the Tunnel conditions produced operation solutions, as opposed to 43% of subjects in all other conditions, G2(1) = 4.29, p < .05.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

May combine two claims.

Collapsing across all conditions, the dispersion solution tended to be rated as most practical, followed by the open passage solution and then operation solutions.

“Collapsing over subjects in all conditions, the dispersion solution tended to be rated as most practical (a mean of 2.0), followed by the open passage (3.9) and operation solutions (5.4).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

Control subjects' protocols differed from those of story-condition subjects: control subjects were more often prompted to talk, sometimes seemed confused and asked if there really was a solution, and received fewer prompts to clarify their solutions.

“Control subjects more often were prompted to talk.Sometimes they seemed confused and asked if there really was a solution to the problem.In addition, control subjects received fewer prompts to clarify their solutions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

The quote only partly states this claim.

In Experiment II, dispersion solutions tended to appear relatively early in subjects' proposal sequences, before the median rank.

“Collapsing over all conditions, dispersion solutions tended to be produced relatively early in the sequence of proposals given by a subject (i.e., prior to the proposal of median rank, p < .025by a sign test).”

May combine two claims.

When later questioned, S28 was also clearly aware of correspondences between the radiation problem and the prior story, so it is uncertain which analogy initially triggered the dispersion solution.

“However, when later questioned by the experimenter, S28 clearly was also aware of correspondences between the radiation problem and the prior story'.It is therefore uncertain which analogy initially triggered generation of the dispersion solution.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

In the Attack-Dispersion condition, seven subjects produced and rated the dispersion solution and at least one other proposal; they rated the dispersion solution as much more practical than other solutions.

“In the Attack-Dispersion condition seven subjects produced and rated the dispersion solution and at least one other proposal.The dispersion solution was rated as much more practical than other solutions (1.43 versus 4.64), F(1,6) = 27.2,p < .Ol.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment IV's Hint condition, 10 of 12 subjects rated the Attack-Dispersion story as very helpful, one as somewhat helpful, and one did not answer; 50% rated The Wine Merchants as not helpful at all, and 91% rated The Identical Twins as not helpful at all.

“In addition, 10 of the 12 subjects indicated that the Attack-Dispersion story was “very helpful,” one indicated that it was “somewhat helpful,” and one did not answer the question.In contrast, 50% of the subjects indicated that “The Wine Merchants” was “not helpful at all,” and 91% (10 of 11 who answered the question) indicated that “The Identical Twins” was “not helpful at all.””

May combine two claims.

In Experiment II, the mean number of non-dispersion proposals was 1.17 in the Attack condition, 1.40 in the Parade condition, and 2.12 in the control condition; only the control condition differed significantly from the two story conditions.

“The mean number of proposals was 1.17 for the Attack condition, 1.40 for the Parade condition, and 2.12 for the control condition, F(2,139) = 12.7, p < .OOl.A Newman-Keuls test indicated that only the difference between the control condition and the two story conditions was significant, p < .Ol.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment III, among 24 subjects who gave the successive-groups solution to the military problem, 10 (42%) suggested an accumulation solution to the radiation problem, while only 3 of the remaining 21 (14%) did so, a significant difference.

“Of 24 subjects who gave the successive groups solution to the military problem, 10 (42%) suggested an accumulation solution to the radiation problem.In contrast, only 3 of the remaining 21 subjects (14%) suggested an accumulation solution to the radiation problem, G2(l) = 4.28, p < .05.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment I, 70% of subjects in the Open Supply Route condition produced the open passage solution, compared with 20% in all other conditions, a significant difference.

“Seventy percent of subjects in the Open Supply Route condition produced the open passage solution, as opposed to 20% of subjects in all other conditions, G2(1) = 8.21, p < .Ol.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment II, most subjects who produced a dispersion solution rated the story as very helpful, while most who did not produce one rated it as not helpful at all.

“Most subjects who produced a dispersion solution rated the story as “very helpful.”In contrast, the majority of those subjects in both conditions who failed to produce a dispersion solution rated the story as “not helpful at all.””

May combine two claims.

In Experiment II, the share of subjects who produced complete or partial dispersion solutions differed by condition: 76% in the Attack-Dispersion group, 49% in the Parade-Dispersion group, and 8% in the control group, and the overall difference was significant.

“Dispersion solutions were produced by 76% of the subjects in the Attack-Dispersion condition, 49% of the subjects in the Parade-Dispersion condition, and only 8% of the subjects in the control condition, G2(2) = 53.1,p < .OOl.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment I, the frequency differences among the four conditions for the dispersion solution were highly significant, and the Attack-Dispersion condition differed significantly from all other conditions.

“For this solution the frequency differences among the four conditions were highly significant, G2(3) = 33.9,p < .OOl, as was a comparison between the Attack-Dispersion condition versus all others, G2( 1) = 30.9,p < .001.3”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment III, among the nine subjects who generated dispersion solutions to both problems, all but one rated the military story as somewhat or very helpful; in contrast, 58% of the remaining subjects rated it as not helpful at all.

“Of the nine subjects who generated the dispersion solution to both problems, all but one indicated that the military story was “somewhat” or “very” helpful in solving the radiation problem (one other subject did not respond to this question).In contrast, a majority (58%) of the remaining subjects indicated that the story was not helpful at all.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Subjects' post-hoc ratings of story helpfulness accurately reflect their solution processes.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment III, among the 22 subjects who produced the military dispersion solution, 9 (41%) later produced complete or partial radiation dispersion solutions, with five complete; only 3 of the remaining 23 (13%) did so, with two complete, and the difference was significant.

“Of the 22 subjects who produced the dispersion solution to the military problem, 9 (41%) subsequently produced either complete or partial dispersion solutions to the radiation problem.Five of these subjects produced a complete solution.In contrast, only 3 of the remaining 23 subjects (13%) produced this solution G2( 1) = 4.61, p < .05.Two of these subjects produced a complete solution.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Parallel analyses for the Open Supply Route and Tunnel conditions found no significant differences in practicality or creativity ratings.

“Parallel analyses for the Open Supply Route and Tunnel conditions revealed no significant differences.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

For the Open Supply Route story, the open passage solution received the highest likelihood rating, though it did not differ significantly from the two operation solutions; these three were rated significantly higher than the other proposals.

“For the Open Supply Route story, the open passage solution received the highest rating, although it did not differ significantly from the ratings given the two operation solutions.However, these three solutions were all rated significantly higher than any of the others (p < .05).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The independent rating task subjects' likelihood ratings are a valid proxy for the story analogies' actual effectiveness in Experiment I.

May combine two claims.

Subject S15's pre-prompt solution involved applying many low-intensity rays; after the prompt, the subject produced the dispersion solution by adding the idea of sending rays from many angles.

“Notice also that the solution S 15 proposes prior to the prompt involves the idea of applying many low-intensity rays.After the prompt, the subject produces the dispersion solution by augmenting this aspect of the earlier solution with the idea of sending rays from many angles.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

In the Attack-Dispersion condition, 7 of 10 subjects produced the dispersion solution without any prompt, and 3 produced it after being prompted to refer back to the story.

“Of the 10 subjects in the Attack-Dispersion condition, 7 produced the dispersion solution without any prompt, and 3 produced it after being prompted to refer back to the story.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment IV, 92% of Hint subjects produced the dispersion solution, while only 20% (3 of 15) of No Hint subjects did so, a significant difference.

“Whereas 92% of the subjects in the Hint condition produced the dispersion solution, only 20% (3 out of 15) of those in the No Hint condition did so, G2(1) = 15.5,~< .OOl.”

May combine two claims.

In an independent group of 20 undergraduates, 15 selected the dispersion solution as more practical than the open passage solution, a significant result by sign test.

“Fifteen of the twenty subjects selected the dispersion solution as more practical @ < .05by a sign test).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

S28 remarked that the dispersion solution made it hard to think of alternative solutions, suggesting awareness of a set effect; no other subject explicitly mentioned such an inhibitory effect.

“Also note that at the beginning of this excerpt S28 remarks that the dispersion solution made it hard to think of alternative solutions, suggesting that he was aware of a set effect.No other subject explicitly mentioned such an inhibitory effect of the prior story.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In the Tunnel condition, four of the eight subjects who generated operation solutions received a prompt to use the story before doing so.

“In the case of the Tunnel condition four of the eight subjects who generated operation solutions received a prompt to use the story before they did so.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment I, solutions that treated healthy tissue directly were produced by 30% of control subjects, 10% of Tunnel-condition subjects, and none of the Attack-Dispersion or Open Supply Route subjects.

“Such solutions were produced by 30% of the subjects in the control condition, 10% of the subjects in the Tunnel condition, and none of the subjects in the Attack-Dispersion and Open Supply conditions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment I, the average number of nonanalogous solutions produced was 1.10 in the Attack-Dispersion condition, 1.60 in the Open Supply Route condition, 2.70 in the Tunnel condition, and 2.00 in the control condition, with a significant overall difference.

“The average number of nonanalogous solutions produced was 1.10 for the Attack-Dispersion condition, 1.60 for the Open Supply Route condition, 2.70 for the Tunnel condition, and 2.00 for the control condition, F(3,36) = 4.17, p < .025.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

May combine two claims.

In the protocol of subject S15, after the prompt to use the story, the subject focused on the solution of dividing the army into groups and immediately generated the parallel radiation solution, with no apparent mapping between the story's initial problem and the target problem.

“After the prompt to use the story, this subject clearly focuses on the solution of dividing up the army into groups and immediately generates the parallel solution to the radiation problem.There is no apparent map- ping between the initial problem stated in the story and the target problem.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

Among the three story conditions in Experiment I, the Open Supply Route condition produced the second highest frequency of operation solutions, and the Tunnel condition produced the second highest frequency of open passage solutions.

“Among the three story conditions, the Open Supply Route condition produced the second highest frequency of operation solutions, while the Tunnel condition produced the second highest frequency of open passage solutions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment I, all ten subjects in the Attack-Dispersion condition produced the dispersion solution, while no control subject produced it.

“All 10 subjects who were given the Attack-Dispersion story produced this solution, whereas not a single control subject did so.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Subject S28 claimed that he generated the dispersion solution based on an analogy between the radiation problem and a real-world problem he had read about the previous night, using lasers to fuse a lightbulb filament without breaking the glass.

“This subject's protocol is particularly interesting because he claimed that he generated the dispersion solution on the basis of an analogy between the radiation problem and an actual problem he had read about the previous night (using lasers to fuse the filament in a lightbulb without breaking the glass).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment V, 76% of subjects in the two experimental conditions eventually produced the dispersion solution, while only 10% (one subject) in the Incubation Control condition did so, a significant difference.

“Whereas 76% of the subjects in the two experimental conditions eventually produced the dispersion solution, only 10% (one subject) produced it in the Incubation Control condition, G2(1) = 15.0,p < .OOl.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In Experiment V's Incubation Control condition, 10% produced the dispersion solution before the story, 0% after the story without a hint, 0% after the story with a hint, and 90% never.

“| Incubation Control | 10 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 10 |”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment IV, subjects seemed to have little trouble identifying the right story in memory and applying it to the target problem when instructed to do so.

“Subjects in this experiment seemed to have little difficulty in identifying the appropriate story in memory, and applying it to the target problem, as long as they were instructed to do so.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In Experiment V's Story Second condition, 10% produced the dispersion solution before the story, 35% after the story without a hint, 30% after the story with a hint, and 25% never.

“| Story Second | 10 | 35 | 30 | 25 | 20 |”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment II, 76% of the Attack-Dispersion condition and 49% of the Parade-Dispersion condition proposed the dispersion solution, versus 8% of controls.

“| Attack-Dispersion | 57 | 19 | 76 | 47 |”

• Also stated in: § The Identical Twins · plain

  “| Parade-Dispersion | 31 | 18 | 49 | 45 |”

• Also stated in: § The Identical Twins · plain

  “| Control | 8 | 0 | 8 | 50 |”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

In Experiment I, all subjects in the Attack-Dispersion story condition proposed the dispersion solution, while none in the control condition did.

“| Attack-Dispersion story | 100 | 10 | 30 |”

• Also stated in: § The Identical Twins · plain

  “| Control | 0 | 20 | 50 |”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment V's Story First condition, 41% produced the dispersion solution after the story without a hint, 35% after the story with a hint, and 24% never.

“| Story First | - | 41 | 35 | 24 | 17 |”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment V, 41% of Story First subjects gave the dispersion solution on their first attempt after recall, while 35% of Story Second subjects produced it immediately after reading the story.

“In the Story First condition, 41% of the subjects gave the dispersion solution on their first attempt following recall of the story; while in the Story Second condition, 35% of the subjects produced this solution immediately after reading the story.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment V, collapsing across Story First and Story Second, 43% generated the dispersion solution before the hint, while 76% eventually succeeded.

“Collapsing over the Story First and Story Second conditions, 43% of the subjects generated the dispersion solution prior to receiving the hint, while a total of 76% eventually succeeded in producing the critical solution.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment IV, three story propositions were recalled by all 27 subjects: proposition 1 and propositions 5 and 6.

“Three propositions were recalled by all 27 subjects.These were proposition 1 (“A small country was ruled by a king”) and propositions 5 and 6 (“Many roads radiated outward from the fortress like spokes on a wheel”).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Kintsch and Van Dijk's theory proposes that understanding can involve repeated application of inference rules that create increasingly abstract macrostructure representations of a passage.

“They argue that the understanding process may involve the iterative application of a set of inference rules that generate increasingly abstract “macrostructure” representations of a prose passage.”

• cites Kintsch and Van Dijk (1978) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

There has been little experimental work on analogical thinking in complex problem-solving tasks, although solving A:B::C:D analogy items has been studied extensively.

“While the process of solving analogy test items of the form A:B::C:D has been studied quite extensively (Sternberg, 1977a(Sternberg, , 1977b)), there has been little experimental investigation of analogical thinking in more complex problem-solving tasks.”

• cites Sternberg, 1977aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Sternberg, 1977bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Several major scientific theories-the hydraulic model of blood circulation, the planetary model of atomic structure, and the billiard ball model of gases-were founded on analogies.

“The hydraulic model of the blood circulation system, the planetary model of atomic structure, and the “billiard ball” model of gases all represent major scientific theories founded on analogies (Boden, 1977, Chap. 11).”

• cites Boden, 1977Not checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Anecdotal reports of creative scientists and mathematicians suggest that new theories often arise from noticing and applying an analogy from another knowledge domain.

“The anecdotal reports of creative scientists and mathematicians suggest that the development of a new theory frequently depends on noticing and applying an analogy drawn from a different domain of knowledge (Hadamard, 1954).”

• cites Hadamard, 1954Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The three inference rules of deletion, generalization, and construction proposed by Kintsch and Van Dijk are readily applicable to the story analogies used in this work.

“While much remains to be learned about how this process operates, the three specific inference rules proposed by Kintsch and Van Dijk (which they term “deletion,” “generalization,” and “construction”) would seem readily applicable to the type of story analogies we are considering here.”

• cites Kintsch and Van Dijk (1978) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In propositions 5 and 5', the army and rays do not occupy corresponding semantic roles: the army is the object destroyed, while the rays are the instrument of destruction.

“In other words, the army and the rays do not till corresponding semantic roles in propositions 5 and 5'; rather, the army is the object of the process of destruction in 5, while the rays are the instrument of the destruction in 5'.”

May combine two claims.

Duncker classified proposed solutions to the radiation problem into three broad types: lowering ray intensity through healthy tissue, preventing contact between rays and healthy tissue, and changing the relative ray sensitivity of healthy tissue and tumor.

“Duncker identified three broad categories of proposed solutions to the radiation problem: (1) reducing the intensity of the rays as they pass through the healthy tissue; (2) avoiding contact between the rays and healthy tissue; and (3) altering the relative sensitivity to rays of the healthy tissue and the tumor (e.g., by immunizing the healthy tissue or sensitizing the tumor).”

• cites Duncker (1945) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The semantic distance between analogous domains can vary widely.

“It seems clear, however, that the “semantic distance” between analogous domains can vary a great deal.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Analogy can be defined at multiple levels of abstraction.

“A system of representation for analogy must be able to describe a fundamental property of such relational systems, namely, that analogy may be defined at multiple levels of abstraction.”

May combine two claims.

S15 appeared to use the story analogy to develop an early partial solution, while other subjects apparently generated an abstract partial solution independently of the analogy.

“S15 appeared to use the story analogy to develop the early partial solution; however, other subjects apparently generated an abstract partial solution independently of the analogy.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

The Open Supply Route story's analogy differs from the other two stories: it only suggests that an existing open passage might be used, so applying it requires mapping the abstract idea of an open passage and then finding a concrete example, which may explain why four of seven Open Supply Route subjects who gave the open passage solution had to be prompted.

“In contrast, the Open Supply Route story only suggests that an existing open passage might be used.The subject must then search memory to find a concrete example of such an open passage to the stomach (e.g., the esophagus).Applying the analogy thus involves two steps: mapping the abstract idea of an open passage from the story to the target problem, and then thinking of a concrete example of such”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

The quote only partly states this claim.

In Experiment IV, two independent scorers completely agreed in identifying radiation dispersion solutions.

“Two independent scorers were entirely in agreement in identifying dispersion solutions to the radiation problem.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Experiment II used a noninteractive booklet procedure to avoid the possibility that the experimenter could lead subjects to a particular solution.

“In order to avoid any possibility that subjects could be led to a particular solution by the experimenter, Experiment II used a noninteractive procedure in which story analogies and the radiation problem were administered in booklet form.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In Experiment II, solution proposals were analyzed by two independent scorers who were blind to condition, and disagreements were resolved by discussion.

“This analysis was done by two independent scorers, each blind to the conditions in which subjects served.Disagreements were resolved by discussion.”

May combine two claims.

In the Tunnel story, analogous radiation solutions include operating to expose the tumor to rays or inserting a tube through the stomach wall to send rays to the tumor.

“Analogous radiation solutions might be to operate to expose the tumor to the rays, or to insert a tube through the stomach wall and send rays through it to the tumor.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In Experiment I, subjects' protocols for the radiation problem were transcribed and scored for proposed solution types by two independent scorers.

“Subjects' protocols for the radiation problem were transcribed and scored for the presence of various types of proposed solutions, by two independent scorers.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

There is a lack of empirical research on analogical problem solving.

“Given the lack of empirical research on analogical problem solving, even more basic issues arise.”

May combine two claims.

Although the numbers were too small to be statistically reliable, the results suggest that an analogy may tend to block generation of alternative types of solutions.

“While the numbers involved were too small to be statistically reliable, these results suggest that an analogy may tend to block generation of alternative types of solutions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment IV's No Hint condition, 2 of the 3 subjects who produced dispersion solutions gave only partial solutions and said they did not consider using the stories; it is likely that only 1 of 15 spontaneously noticed and applied the critical analogy.

“Furthermore, 2 of these 3 subjects gave only partial solutions (as defined in Experiment II), and indicated that they did not consider using the stories.It is therefore possible, and in fact rather likely, that only 1 of the 15 subjects spontaneously noticed the critical analogy and successfully applied it to produce the dispersion solution.”

May combine two claims.

Solving the target problem from the story analogy appears to require three major steps: constructing representations of story and problem, mapping the story representation onto the problem representation, and using the mapping to generate a parallel solution.

“For our story analogy and target problem the solution process appears to require three major steps.”

• Also stated in: § The Representation of Analogy · plain

  “(2) The representation of the story must be mapped onto that of the problem.”

• Also stated in: § The Representation of Analogy · plain

  “(3) Finally, the person must use the mapping to generate the parallel solution to the target problem.”

May combine two claims.

The effectiveness of analogies in prompting a specific solution is a matter of degree: an Attack story with a problem statement analogous to the radiation problem was more likely to trigger the dispersion solution than a Parade story with a less related problem statement, even though both stories had similar setting information and solution statements.

“Second, the effectiveness of analogies in prompting a specific solution is a matter of degree.In particular, a story with a problem statement analogous to that of the radiation problem (the Attack story) was more likely to trigger the dispersion solution than was a story with a problem statement less related to that of the radiation problem (the Parade story).This was true even though both stories”

May combine two claims.

The overall impression from the protocols is that generating analogous solutions involves a conscious process of mapping correspondences between the story and the target problem, with the degree of mapping varying greatly and sometimes occurring in sequential steps.

“The overall impression created by the problem-solving protocols is that the generation of analogous solutions involves a conscious process of mapping correspondences between the story and the target problem.The degree of mapping required seems to vary a great deal.Sometimes mapping was done in considerable detail, particularly if the subject was having difficulty producing a parallel solution.In”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.

May combine two claims.

Subjects had no serious difficulty identifying the critical story analogy in memory and applying it to generate the radiation dispersion solution.

“Subjects clearly had no serious difficulty in identifying the critical story analogy in memory and applying it to generate the dispersion solution to the radiation problem.”

May combine two claims.

The open passage and operation solutions both avoid contact between rays and healthy tissue by directing rays through an unobstructed route; the open passage solution uses a preexisting route, while operation solutions require constructing one.

“Notice that both types of solutions involve avoiding contact between the rays and the healthy tissue, by directing the rays through an unobstructed route.The basic difference between the two solution types is simply that the open passage solution makes use of a preexisting route (the esophagus), while the operation solutions require that the route be constructed (by some type of operation).”

May combine two claims.

Duncker reported that only 2 of 42 subjects reached the dispersion solution, and both were prompted by the experimenter.

“Duncker (1945) reported that only 2 of 42 subjects arrived at this dispersion solution, and both were prompted by the experimenter.”

• cites Duncker (1945) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Experiment II, data from one Parade-Dispersion subject who knew the radiation problem and dispersion solution were discarded.

“The data for one subject in the Parade-Dispersion condition who was familiar with the radiation problem and dispersion solution were discarded.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Subjects with a relevant analogy available could fail to derive the parallel solution in at least three ways: inability to apply the analogy, inability to locate it in memory, and failure to spontaneously notice its relevance.

“There seem to be at least three distinct ways in which subjects who have a relevant analogy available might nonetheless fail to derive the parallel solution to a target problem.”

• Also stated in: § ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS · hedged

  “The first and most basic is that subjects might be unable to successfully apply the story analogy even if they tried.”

• Also stated in: § ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS · hedged

  “Third, subjects might be able to retrieve a potentially useful analogy and yet fail to spontaneously notice its relevance to the target problem.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment IV, random assignment should have equalized memory for the critical story across Hint and No Hint conditions, and the mean number of propositions recalled did not differ significantly between groups (32.08 vs 33.53).

“Since subjects were randomly assigned to the two conditions, degree of memory for the critical story should have been equalized across the two conditions.”

• Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain

  “As anticipated, the mean number of propositions recalled did not differ significantly between the Hint and No Hint groups (32.08 versus 33.53), f < 1.”

May combine two claims.

Although the stories and target problem were presented verbally, the problems essentially describe spatial relationships.

“Even though the stories and the target problem were always presented verbally in our experiments, the problems essentially describe spatial relationships.”

May combine two claims.

Experiment IV showed that subjects can identify a relevant story analogy encoded in memory among distractor stories and use it to generate a solution to a later target problem.

“The results of Experiment IV demonstrated that subjects can identify a relevant story analogy encoded into memory in the context of distractor stories, and can use the analogy to generate a solution to a subsequent target problem.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The mapping process may partly depend on interpretive procedures applied to a mediating spatial image.

“For example, the mapping process may in part depend on interpretive procedures that are applied to a mediating spatial image.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Because the study used only one target problem and a very limited set of story analogies, generalization from it requires caution.

“We certainly need to be cautious in generalizing on the basis of the present study, which used only one target problem and a very limited set of story analogies.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In one two-string problem study, the experimenter accidentally brushed against a string and set it moving (Maier, 1931).

“For example, in one investigation of the use of hints in the “two-string” problem, the experimenter “accidentally” brushed against one string and set it in motion (Maier, 1931).”

• cites Maier, 1931 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

That hint was very effective in eliciting the pendulum solution, but subjects seldom reported awareness of using it unless they solved the problem in separate stages.

“This hint was very effective in eliciting the “pendulum” solution (attaching objects as weights and setting the strings in motion); yet subjects rarely reported being aware of using the hint, unless they gave the solution in separate stages, rather than all at once.”

• cites Maier, 1931 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In Experiment V, of seven Story First subjects who gave the dispersion solution immediately after recall, six reported using the story; if those reports are accepted, the rates of spontaneously noticing and using the analogy were identical at 35% in both conditions.

“However, of the seven subjects in the Story First group who gave the dispersion solution immediately after story recall, six reported that they used the story to help solve the problem.If we accept these reports at face value, it appears that the percentages of subjects in the two conditions who spontaneously noticed and used the analogy were identical (35% in both conditions).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Subjects' reports about whether they used the story accurately reflect their actual use of the story.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Using a propositional representation for the correspondences does not rule out an important role for analog representation in mapping.

“Our use of a propositional representation to describe the correspondences between the stories and the radiation problem does not preclude the possibility that some form of analog representation plays an important role in the mapping process.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The role of mapping may apply not only to problem solving but also to many cognitive skills involving concept learning and classification of instances.

“Note that the above description of the role of mapping potentially applies not just to problem solving, but to a wide range of cognitive skills requiring concept learning and classification of instances.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

That phrase seems to evoke a spatial image capturing essential aspects of the dispersion solution that apply to both the military and medical problems.

“Intuitively, this phrase seems to elicit a spatial image that represents those essential aspects of the dispersion solution that can be applied to both the military and the medical problems.”

May combine two claims.

Mapping correspondences between relational structures is involved in story-understanding schemata, scene-perception frames, and social-behavior scripts.

“For example, the mapping of correspondences between relational structures is involved in the use of schemata for story understanding (Rumelhart, 1975), frames for scene perception (Minsky, 1975), and scripts for understanding of social behavior (Abelson, 1975).”

• cites Rumelhart, 1975 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Minsky, 1975Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Abelson, 1975 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Analogical problem solving is neither automatic nor invariably applied by college students as a conscious strategy.

“This suggests that the process of analogical problem solving is neither automatic nor invariably applied by college students as a conscious strategy.”

May combine two claims.

The drop in transfer cannot be explained by poor encoding of the story analogy, because most subjects produced the analogous solution after being hinted to apply the story.

“This decline in transfer performance cannot be attributed to faulty encoding of the story analogy, since most subjects were able to produce the analogous solution once they were given a hint to apply the story.”