The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Analogical problem solving
Open accessOverview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Across five experiments, people could use a story analogy from a distant military domain to solve Duncker’s radiation problem, especially when given a hint to use the story. Without such a hint, spontaneous noticing and transfer dropped sharply, even though the analogy was often retrievable and usable once prompted.
Key findings
- In Experiment I, all 10 subjects given the Attack-Dispersion story produced the dispersion solution, versus 0 of 10 controls; the Open Supply Route story raised open-passage proposals to 70% versus 20% in other conditions, and the Tunnel story raised operation proposals to 80% versus 43% elsewhere.
- In Experiment II, the Attack story produced 76% total dispersion solutions (57% complete, 19% partial), the Parade story produced 49% (31% complete, 18% partial), and controls produced 8%; the less analogous Parade problem statement reduced transfer. Effective analogies also narrowed search: non-dispersion proposals averaged 1.17 for Attack, 1.40 for Parade, and 2.12 for controls, while healthy-tissue-protection alternatives appeared for 2% of Attack, 16% of Parade, and 28% of control subjects.
- In Experiment III, 22 of 45 subjects (49%) generated the military dispersion solution; 9 of those 22 (41%) then produced a radiation dispersion solution, compared with 3 of the remaining 23 (13%). This 41% was lower than the 76% obtained in Experiment II when the solution was supplied by the experimenter.
- In Experiment IV, 11 of 12 hinted subjects (92%) produced the complete dispersion solution, but only 3 of 15 no-hint subjects (20%) did so, and probably only 1 noticed the analogy spontaneously. In Experiment V, 43% produced the solution before a hint and 76% eventually did; the incubation-control condition produced it for only 1 of 10 subjects (10%), and that subject did so before seeing the story.
Methods
- Five experiments used Duncker’s radiation problem as the target and military stories as analogies. Experiment I used oral protocols with 40 undergraduates, 10 per condition, comparing three story types against a no-story control with experimenter prompts. Experiment II used a noninteractive booklet with 143 undergraduates assigned to Attack, Parade, or control. Experiment III had 46 students first solve the military problem and then the radiation problem. Experiment IV had 27 paid subjects memorize the critical story among two distractor stories and then solve the radiation problem with or without a hint. Experiment V had 47 paid subjects in Story First, Story Second, or Incubation Control conditions.
- Main analyses scored solution types by independent scorers, used G² tests for condition comparisons, and supplemented these with protocol excerpts, helpfulness/creativity/practicality ratings, and recall scoring in Experiment IV.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: the study used only one target problem and a limited set of story analogies, so generalization is cautious; it remains unclear whether similar results would hold for more computational or multi-step problems; more work is needed on spatial representation, noticing, memory access, and mapping; post-hoc questionnaires may reflect hindsight; protocol analysis has obvious limits; and Experiment III was correlational, though additional evidence suggested a causal influence.
- Evident from the text, not framed as author limitations: samples were undergraduates or paid subject-pool participants, several conditions had small numbers (e.g., 12 hinted and 15 no-hint subjects in Experiment IV; 10 incubation-control subjects in Experiment V), and Experiment I involved substantial experimenter prompting and feedback.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
82 Own result · 54 Own interpretation · 12 No full text of the sources · 7 Own method · 5 Sources not found · 4 No basis given · 1 Not checked yet
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, when no hint to consider the story was given, frequency of analogous solutions decreased markedly.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all experiments subjects who first read a story about a military problem and its solution tended to generate analogous solutions to a medical problem (Duncker's “radiation problem”), provided they were given a hint to use the story to help solve the problem.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects were able to retrieve the story from memory and use it to generate an analogous solution, even when the critical story had been memorized in the context of two distractor stories (Experiment IV).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transfer frequency was reduced when the problem presented in the military story was substantially disanalogous to the radiation problem, even though the solution illustrated in the story corresponded to an effective radiation solution (Experiment II).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects in Experiment III tended to generate analogous solutions to the radiation problem after providing their own solutions to the military problem.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, 22 of the 45 subjects (49%) produced the gist of the dispersion solution: the general should divide the troops into small groups and send them down different roads.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 45- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The value of 41% is significantly higher than the 8% of subjects who produced the dispersion solution to the radiation problem without any prior story problem (Control condition of Experiment II), G2(1) = 10.4,p < .Ol.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Newman-Keuls tests revealed that only the difference between the Tunnel and Attack-Dispersion conditions was significant (p < .Ol).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the Hint condition, 11 out of 12 subjects (92%) produced the complete dispersion solution.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The protocols of 2 of the 3 prompted subjects suggested use of a solution-focusing strategy.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedgedn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 60
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelationaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.””
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelationaln = 24 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.””
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedgedcorrelationaln = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Subjects' post-hoc ratings of story helpfulness accurately reflect their solution processes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelationaln = 22 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Parallel analyses for the Open Supply Route and Tunnel conditions revealed no significant differences.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The independent rating task subjects' likelihood ratings are a valid proxy for the story analogies' actual effectiveness in Experiment I.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifteen of the twenty subjects selected the dispersion solution as more practical @ < .05by a sign test).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 15 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All 10 subjects who were given the Attack-Dispersion story produced this solution, whereas not a single control subject did so.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Incubation Control | 10 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 10 |”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Identical Twins
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Noticing and Accessing Potential Analogies
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Story Second | 10 | 35 | 30 | 25 | 20 |”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Identical Twins
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 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 |”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Identical Twins
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § The Identical Twins · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Attack-Dispersion story | 100 | 10 | 30 |”
- Also stated in: § The Identical Twins · plain
“| Control | 0 | 20 | 50 |”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Identical Twins
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § The Identical Twins · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Story First | - | 41 | 35 | 24 | 17 |”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Identical Twins
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainn = 27- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Representation of Analogy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kintsch and Van Dijk (1978) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sternberg, 1977a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Sternberg, 1977b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Boden, 1977
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hadamard, 1954
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Representation of Analogy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kintsch and Van Dijk (1978) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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'.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Representation of Analogy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > THE RADIATION PROBLEM AND ITS ANALOGIES
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Duncker (1945) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems clear, however, that the “semantic distance” between analogous domains can vary a great deal.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > INTRODUCTION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Representation of Analogy
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedgedconditionaln = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two independent scorers were entirely in agreement in identifying dispersion solutions to the radiation problem.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis was done by two independent scorers, each blind to the conditions in which subjects served.Disagreements were resolved by discussion.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects' protocols for the radiation problem were transcribed and scored for the presence of various types of proposed solutions, by two independent scorers.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the lack of empirical research on analogical problem solving, even more basic issues arise.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedgedn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Representation of Analogy
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § The Representation of Analogy · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Duncker (1945) reported that only 2 of 42 subjects arrived at this dispersion solution, and both were prompted by the experimenter.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Duncker (1945) source
plainn = 42- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data for one subject in the Parade-Dispersion condition who was familiar with the radiation problem and dispersion solution were discarded.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though the stories and the target problem were always presented verbally in our experiments, the problems essentially describe spatial relationships.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > EXPERIMENT V
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the mapping process may in part depend on interpretive procedures that are applied to a mediating spatial image.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > GENERAL DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Noticing and Accessing Potential Analogies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Maier, 1931 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Noticing and Accessing Potential Analogies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Maier, 1931 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Results and Discussion
hedgedn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Subjects' reports about whether they used the story accurately reflect their actual use of the story.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > GENERAL DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Generality of the Mapping Process
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > GENERAL DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > The Generality of the Mapping Process
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that the process of analogical problem solving is neither automatic nor invariably applied by college students as a conscious strategy.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > EXPERIMENT V
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > Noticing and Accessing Potential Analogies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is an optimal level of abstraction at which analogical relations may be represented to effectively guide the solution process.
“Similarly, we assume there is an optimal level of abstraction at which analogical relations may be represented in order to effectively guide the solution process.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Proposition 1' (the tumor is located in the interior of the patient's body) is included in the macrostructure for the radiation problem as an inference based on knowledge of where the stomach is located.
“Incidentally, note that we assume proposition 1' is included in the macrestructure for the problem as an inference based on knowledge of where the stomach is located.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The person will use semantic knowledge to transform the relation of “capturing” into “destroying” via the common semantic core “overcoming”.
“In the case of propositions 16 and 16', we assume the person will use semantic knowledge to transform the relation of “capturing” into the relation of “destroying,” operating on the common semantic core (i.e., “overcoming”) that links the two relations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The verbal protocols obtained while subjects thought aloud provide valid evidence about their underlying problem-solving processes.
“some subjects insisted that talking aloud hindered their thinking, and consequently did not say very much.”
“While this type of protocol analysis has obvious limitations, it may at least provide some hints about the process of analogical problem solving, and in fact served in part to motivate subsequent experiments.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The independent rating task subjects' likelihood ratings are a valid proxy for the story analogies' actual effectiveness in Experiment I.
“In order to assess whether subjects shared our intuitions we administered a rating task to 51 undergraduates, none of whom previously knew of any solutions to the radiation problem.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The experimenter's prompts and interactions in Experiment I did not create the analogous solutions or substantially distort the solution frequencies.
“Since a primary concern in Experiment I was to obtain interpretabie oral protocols, a considerable amount of probing by the experimenter was essential.However, it would clearly be desirable to demonstrate that people can use analogies to generate problem solutions without interacting with the experimenter.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The control condition with no story is a valid baseline for assessing story analogy effects.
“The control condition used no story at all, rather than an irrelevant story, because it seemed possible that an irrelevant story would actually interfere with the solution process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The two distractor stories used in Experiment IV are disanalogous to the radiation problem.
“However, the two distractor stories were intended to be as disanalogous to the radiation problem as possible.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Subjects' post-hoc ratings of story helpfulness accurately reflect their solution processes.
“The results obtained with such post-hoc questionnaires must be interpreted with caution, since they may reflect hindsight rather than accurate memories of the solution process.Nevertheless, these rating results are at least a source of converging evidence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Subjects' reports about whether they used the story accurately reflect their actual use of the story.
“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).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Prior research suggests that, in general, a greater number of examples can lead to superior transfer when learning an abstract rule”
From A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Gick and Holyoak, 1980
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“GPT3 also displayed strong zero-shot performance on letter string analogies, 16 four-term verbal analogies, 17,19-21 and identification of analogies between stories. 18,22,23”
From Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“GPT-3 also showed performance in the same range as human participants (though numerically weaker) on a problem set from Jones et al. 21 involving categorical, compositional, and causal relations (Figure 7d).”
From Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“participants performed worse on problems in which the analogs were semantically distant (i.e., the A and B terms had low semantic similarity to C and D), an effect that was also displayed by GPT-3 (logistic regression, effect of semantic distance for GPT-3: OR = 3 . 24, p = 0 . 0165, CI = [1 . 24 , 8 . 5]).”
From Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentχ²(1) = 30.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“G2( 1) = 30.9,p < .001”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 4.29reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .038
“G2(1) = 4.29, p < .05”
- ConsistentF(3, 36) = 4.17reported p < .025 · recomputed p = .012
“F(3,36) = 4.17, p < .025”
- ConsistentF(0.5, 160) = 1.32reported p > .25
“F(.5,160) = 1.32, p > .25”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 5.78reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .016
“G2(1) = 5.78, p < .02”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 4.61reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .032
“G2( 1) = 4.61, p < .05”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Analogical Problem Solving > INTRODUCTION
“(Hadamard, 1954)”
§ Analogical Problem Solving > References
“9. Hadamard, J. The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1945.”
Citations
Cites
D., C. P., Rosch, E. H., & Lloyd, B. (1979) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421578 · Cited by 5,319
Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.85.5.363 · Cited by 5,298
Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice.
Beniger, J. R., Bishop, Y. M. M., Feinberg, S. E., Holland, P. W., Light, R. J., & Mosteller, F. C. (1975) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2063625 · Cited by 5,119
A FRAMEWORK FOR REPRESENTING KNOWLEDGE
Minsky, M. (1988) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-1446-7.50018-2 · Cited by 4,546
Context theory of classification learning
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.85.3.207 · Cited by 3,061
The psychology of computer vision
Rosenfeld, A. (1976) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(76)90008-4 · Cited by 3,015
Duncker, K. (1945) · Psychological Monographs · doi:10.1037/h0093599 · Cited by 2,938
Rosch, E. H., & Lloyd, B. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781032633275 · Cited by 2,869
Pólya, G. (1945) · Cited by 2,609
The structure of ill structured problems
Simon, H. A. (1973) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8 · Cited by 2,600
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Hayes, 1977, Psychological differences among problem isomorphs, Vol. 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,501–1,600 of 2,563
Representation versus Process in Simplicity of Serial Pattern Completion
Scharroo, J., & Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0722 · Cited by 6
Integration of innovative users as source of service innovationsPreprint
Skiba, F., & Herstatt, C. (2008) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 6
Various sources of distraction during analogical reasoning
Kucwaj, H., Ociepka, M., & Chuderski, A. (2022) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-022-01285-3 · Cited by 6
“Analogical reasoning is a core mechanism of human cognition, playing an important role in problem-solving (Gick & Holyoak, 1980; VanLehn, 1998), concept learning (Goldstone & Medin, 1994), language (Gentner & Kurtz, 2005; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), and other cognitive functions.”
BackgroundHow Can Inspiration Be Encouraged in Art Learning?
Ishiguro, C., & Okada, T. (2022) · River Publishers eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781003337263-9 · Cited by 6
Designing clicker questions to stimulate transfer.
Son, J. Y., & Rivas, M. J. (2016) · Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology · doi:10.1037/stl0000065 · Cited by 8
Cognitive and Social Relevance of Psycho-Pedagogical Methods in Guidance
Guichard, J., & Dosnon, O. (2000) · Journal of Career Development · doi:10.1177/089484530002600301 · Cited by 6
The Benefits and Challenges of Analogical Comparison in Learning and Transfer
Hajian, S. (2018) · SFU Educational Review · doi:10.21810/sfuer.v11i1.599 · Cited by 6
Knowledge transfer in a probabilistic Language Of Thought.
Cheyette, S., & Piantadosi, S. (2017) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 7
Trinchero, R. (2014) · Form re - Open Journal per la formazione in rete · doi:10.13128/formare-15269 · Cited by 9
Human-Related Factors in Knowledge Transfer: A Case Study
Zykov, S. V. (2015) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19728-9_22 · Cited by 6
Premo, J., Cavagnetto, A. R., Honke, G., & Kurtz, K. J. (2018) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21466 · Cited by 6
Dixon, R. A. (2010) · Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) · Cited by 6
Individual learning styles and design performance in the metaphorical reasoning process
Casakin, H., & Miller, K. (2008) · J of Design Research · doi:10.1504/jdr.2008.024195 · Cited by 6
“the ‘source’) (Gick and Holyoak, 1980; Reeves and Weisberg, 1993; Coyne and Snodgrass, 1995).”
Improving Memory Through Practice
Payne, D. G., & Wenger, M. J. (1992) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2760-1_11 · Cited by 6
Expertise overcomes impasse to yield far transfer and insight in problem-solving
Ormerod, T. C., & Gross, H. E. (2023) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2023.2177730 · Cited by 7
“Most findings of analogical transfer arise only when there is little or no gap or filler task between presented source and target problems (e.g., Cushen & Wiley, 2018), or when people are told explicitly to analogise (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980).”
BackgroundAn emergent approach to analogical inference
Thibodeau, P. H., Flusberg, S. J., Glick, J. J., & Sternberg, D. A. (2013) · Connection Science · doi:10.1080/09540091.2013.821458 · Cited by 6
Cognición, contexto y enseñanza de las matemáticas
Gómez, C. (1991) · Comunicación Lenguaje y Educación · doi:10.1080/02147033.1991.10820978 · Cited by 6
Revisiting Polya's approach to foster problem solving skill development in software engineers
Allison, M., & Joo, S. F. (2014) · International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE) · doi:10.1109/iccse.2014.6926489 · Cited by 6
“Gick and Holyoak [29] , proposed a framework for analogical problem solving using a three-step process of first generating a representation of the problem, generating solutions for the problem and testing for success.”
BackgroundLearning Mathematics in the 21st Century: Adding Technology to the Equation
Ortiz, E. A., Cristia, J., & Cueto, S. (2020) · Inter-American Development Bank eBooks · doi:10.18235/0002599 · Cited by 13
Fincher, S. A., & Robins, A. V. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.001 · Cited by 9
Designing learning materials to foster transfer of principles: Which route to take?
Schalk, L. (2011) · ETH Zürich Research Collection · doi:10.3929/ethz-a-006877848 · Cited by 6
“…depend on the features of the source chosen (e.g., Gentner & Gentner, 1983), learners fail to spontaneously retrieve the required source (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980), or learners retrieve and integrate knowledge in the reasoning process that is irrelevant for the analogy (e.g., Mather,…”
BackgroundDeveloping Creativity and Humor
Bergen, D., & Rousta, M. M. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-813802-1.00003-x · Cited by 6
Cleary, A. M., & Robinson, D. H. (2025) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/josi.70005 · Cited by 7
The 2008 Mortgage Crisis as a Failure of Analogical Reasoning
Vinokurova, N. (2012) · Cited by 5
Epistemic Models of Sensemaking and Reasoning
Kapon, S., & Berland, L. K. (2023) · doi:10.1063/9780735425477_012 · Cited by 6
Modeling intentional agency: a neo-Gricean framework
Sarkia, M. (2021) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03103-w · Cited by 6
Liu, J. H.-F., Pham, L. B., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/002075997400881 · Cited by 6
Self-citationForm and Content Feedbacks in Foreign Language Writing: The Case of Omani Learners of English
Hubais, A. M., & Dumanig, F. P. (2014) · Cited by 6
Procesos de Resolución de Problemas y Videojuegos: el Caso de Sim City Creator
Monjelat, N. G., Zaballos, L. M., & Lacasa, P. (2018) · Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology · doi:10.25115/ejrep.v10i28.1543 · Cited by 6
Multisensory transfer effects in implicit and explicit category learning
Sun, X., Yao, L., Fu, Q., & Fu, X. (2022) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-022-01754-z · Cited by 5
“When given a hint to recall knowledge acquired from prior tasks, people were quite adept at tackling novel tasks (Gick and Holyoak 1980, 1983; Novick and Holyoak 1991).”
BackgroundFirst We Throw Dust in the Air, then We Claim We Can't See: Navigating in the Creativity StormPreprint
Goldberg, J., & Mazursky, D. (2002) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 5
Research and Innovation: Let the Buyer Beware
Stone, J. E., & Clements, A. D. (1998) · Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) · Cited by 5
Lawson, A., & Kraemer, E. (2020) · doi:10.1145/3377814.3381706 · Cited by 5
“Instructors may have inappropriate expectations of the benefits of analogical reasoning[12].”
BackgroundSmith, G. S., Vega, L. C., & McCrickard, D. S. (2008) · doi:10.1145/1593105.1593197 · Cited by 5
“This method of learning is effective due to the psychological methods that motivate creativity [9].”
MethodRules of Order: Process Models of Human Learning
Nerb, J., Ritter, F. E., & Langley, P. (2007) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195178845.003.0004 · Cited by 5
“These composing sets of production rules into larger ones (Neves & Anderson, 1981) and analogical reasoning based on earlier solutions (Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Jones & Langley, in press).”
BackgroundTransfer of problem-solving strategy using Covlan
Davies, J., & Goel, A. K. (2007) · Journal of Visual Languages & Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2007.01.001 · Cited by 5
“Further, psychological evidence suggests that analogical problem solving is facilitated by animations (17), diagrams (1) as well as visually evocative phrases in stimuli (12).”
BackgroundMethodUsages pédagogiques de la pratique anecdotale dans la formation à la gestion des risques
Marchand, A. L., & Falzon, P. (2015) · Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations · doi:10.1016/s1420-2530(16)30009-7 · Cited by 5
Chae, S. E., & Alexander, P. A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.630609 · Cited by 5
“, Miller Analogy Test; Murray, 1979), these alternatives have included reasoning problems cast as scenarios or stories or have positioned relational reasoning assessment in a gameplaying context (Gick and Holyoak, 1980; Alexander et al., 1986; Chen, 1996; Goswami, 2013).”
BackgroundAlthuizen, N., & Wierenga, B. (2008) · ERIM Report Series Research in Management · Cited by 5
Negative emotions influence EEG correlates of inference formation during analogical reasoning
Leblanc-Sirois, Y., Gélinas, C., & Blanchette, I. (2021) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.02.002 · Cited by 6
Sawyer, R. K., & Henriksen, D. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197747537.005.0004 · Cited by 5
The Roles of Similarity in Transfer: Determinants of Similarity-Based Reminding and Mapping
Gentner, D., & Rattermann, M. J. (1991) · doi:10.21236/ada237005 · Cited by 5
Concept Formation and Commensurability
Nersessian, N. J. (2001) · Boston studies in the philosophy of science · doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9680-0_11 · Cited by 7
Absence of cross-modality analogical transfer in perceptual categorization
Edmunds, C. E. R., Inkster, A. B., Jones, P. M., Milton, F., & Wills, A. J. (2020) · doi:10.46221/ojepn.2020.8639 · Cited by 6
“Further, following previous work in both categorization (e.g., Edmunds, Milton, & Wills, 2015; Edmunds, Wills, & Milton, 2016, 2019; Edwards, Williams, Gentner, & Lombrozo, 2019) and analogical transfer (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980), participants were asked to give verbal reports.”
BackgroundMethodTransfer of high domain knowledge to a similar domain
Jessup, R. K. (2009) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/27784375 · Cited by 5
Consideraciones acerca de la investigación en analogías
González, J. F., González, B. M. G., & Jiménez, T. M. (2004) · ESTUDIOS FRONTERIZOS · doi:10.21670/ref.2004.09.a04 · Cited by 5
The Internal Structure of Semantic Relations: Effects of Relational Similarity and TypicalityPreprint
Popov, V., Pavlova, M., & Hristova, P. (2020) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/fqd4b · Cited by 8
Individual differences in assessing problem similarity
Walters-York, L. M. (1999) · Accounting Education · doi:10.1080/096392899330946 · Cited by 5
Exploring hurdles to transfer : student experiences of applying knowledge across disciplines
Lappalainen, J., & Rosqvist, J. (2014) · International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/0020739x.2014.982729 · Cited by 5
“In contrast, as Gick and Holyoak write,[2] ‘it is all too common for a student to fail to notice the relevance of knowledge acquired in one class to a problem encountered in another’.”
BackgroundHolbert, N. R. (2012) · Cited by 5
The Emergence of Analogy. Analogical Reasoning as a Constraint Satisfaction Process
DORMAEL, J. V. (1990) · Philosophica · doi:10.21825/philosophica.82429 · Cited by 5
Tiwari, R., Kalogerakis, K., & Herstatt, C. (2016) · India studies in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46392-6_7 · Cited by 5
A Cognitive Science Approach to Case-Based Planning
Hammond, K. J., & Seifert, C. M. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-3172-2_7 · Cited by 5
Using Analogies as a Basis for Teaching Cognitive Readiness
Holyoak, K. J., & Richland, L. E. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7579-8_12 · Cited by 5
“…requires directing multiple, converging rays toward the tumor at different angles, with the intensity of each ray being suffi ciently low to avoid destruction of the surrounding tissue, but the combined intensity of the rays being suffi ciently high to destroy the tumor (Gick & Holyoak, 1980 ).”
BackgroundSelf-citationGreenhouse Effects in Global Warming based on Analogical Reasoning
Oh, J., & Jeon, E.-C. (2016) · Foundations of Science · doi:10.1007/s10699-016-9501-z · Cited by 5
Characterizing the Effects of Noise and Domain Distance in Analogous Design
López, R. A. (2012) · OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) · Cited by 5
Tracking relations: The effects of visual attention on relational recognition
Livins, K. A., Doumas, L. A. A., & Spivey, M. J. (2015) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 5
Structural Knowledge as a Pre-requisite to Valid Performance Assessment Scores.
Parkes, J., Suen, H. K., Zimmaro, D. M., & Zappe, S. M. (1999) · Cited by 5
Don, H. J., Goldwater, M. B., & Livesey, E. J. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.957517 · Cited by 5
Transfer of Training in Virtual Environments
Goodenough-Trepagnier, C., Lathan, C., Sebrechts, M. M., Clawson, D. M., & Miller, M. S. (2003) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781410608888.ch4 · Cited by 5
Patterns for design in microtechnology
Albers, A., Deigendesch, T., Turki, T., et al. (2010) · Microsystem Technologies · doi:10.1007/s00542-010-1042-8 · Cited by 5
“Inspiration by analogy forming increases the amount and variety of solutions (Gick and Holyoak 1980; Tseng et al. 2008).”
BackgroundA Case Study of Qualitative Methods
Lewis, C. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.032 · Cited by 14
Lim, A. J., Doumas, L. A. A., & Sinnett, S. (2012) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 5
Shape skeletons and shape similarity
Briscoe, E. (2008) · Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) · doi:10.7282/t3c24wss · Cited by 5
Dawson, L. (2011) · Integrated Spatial Databases · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4951-5_10 · Cited by 7
“Gick and Holyoak (1980) propose a schema induction theory which suggests that it is easier to induce a general schema from experiences with structurally similar problems in different domains than from a single problem.”
BackgroundAnalogical transfer in the THOG task
Koenig, C. S., & Griggs, R. A. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/02724980343000422 · Cited by 5
La Eficacia del Paradigma de Producción para Promover la Recuperación de Análogos Interdominio
Trench, M., Oberholzer, N., Adrover, F., et al. (2009) · Psykhe (Santiago) · doi:10.4067/s0718-22282009000100004 · Cited by 5
“…con los típicamente obtenidos en estudios sobre solución de problemas (e.g., Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989; Gentner, Lowenstein & Thompson, 2004; Gick & Holyoak, 1980, 1983; Spencer & Weisberg, 1986), los que han demostrado que la codifi cación estructural de un solo AB combinada con una tarea…”
Lundie, M., Dasara, H., Beeghly, C., Kazmi, A. R., & Krawczyk, D. C. (2022) · Mind Brain and Education · doi:10.1111/mbe.12325 · Cited by 5
Predictive analogy and cognition
Indurkhya, B. (1992) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-56004-1_15 · Cited by 5
Generative processes and knowledge revision
Wilson, J. T., & Bauer, P. J. (2023) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2023.101936 · Cited by 6
A cognitively based approach to computer integration for design systems
Ramscar, M., Lee, J. R., & Pain, H. (1996) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(96)00025-7 · Cited by 5
Rull, M. A. P., Rosas, É. O., & Lanzagorta, N. (2005) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 5
Formalisation of an Approximate Reasoning: The Analogical Reasoning
Bourrelly, L., Chouraqui, E., & Ricard, M. (1983) · IFAC Proceedings Volumes · doi:10.1016/s1474-6670(17)62020-2 · Cited by 5
Metaphorical reasoning and the design behavior of “pre-architects”
Yazgan, E. Ö., & Akalın, A. (2018) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-018-9485-9 · Cited by 5
Is generalisation conservative? A study with novices in chess
Marmèche, É., & Didierjean, A. (2001) · The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440126162 · Cited by 5
Restructured frame‐of‐reference training improves rating accuracy
Tsai, M.-H., Wee, S., & Koh, B. (2019) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2368 · Cited by 4
“In addition, organizational managers and members should be educated to recognize the anchoring and adjustment heuristic in their judgments and modify their behavior accordingly to avoid anchoring (Gick & Holyoak, 1980).”
BackgroundThe Short-Term Reliability of Metaphors as an Assessment Method
Wegner, E., Burkhart, C., & Nückles, M. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.678327 · Cited by 5
“In the last half of the 20th century, metaphors have received a lot of attention from researchers from as diverse domains as philosophy (Black, 1993), cognitive science (Gick and Holyoak, 1980), or cognitive linguistics (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).”
BackgroundUnderstanding key concepts of electric circuits: Students' use of mental models
Marks, J. B. (2012) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · Cited by 5
Systematic comparison of solved problems as a cooperative learning task
Taconis, R., & van Hout‐Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1999) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/bf02461596 · Cited by 5
Transfer of Training Revisited
Auffrey, A. L., Mirabella, A., & Siebold, G. L. (2001) · doi:10.21236/ada395221 · Cited by 5
Determinants of human compositional generalizationPreprint
Dekker, R., Otto, F., & Summerfield, C. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qnpw6 · Cited by 5
Nahinsky, I. D., Lucas, B. A., Edgell, S. E., Overfelt, J., & Loeb, R. (2004) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/4149004 · Cited by 5
Loehr, A. M., Rittle‐Johnson, B., Durkin, K. L., & Star, J. R. (2020) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3670 · Cited by 6
“…knowledge from examples to new contexts and problems (i.e., knowledge generalization) is critical for it to be useful, yet failures of knowledge generalization are common (i.e., learning information but failing to use that information in a different context) (Gick & Holyoak, 1980, 1983).”
BackgroundMetaphor and Content: An Embodied Paradigm for Learning
Reese, D. D. (2003) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) · Cited by 5
CREATIVE COGNITION: ANALOGY AND INCUBATION
Christensen, B. T. (2005) · Cited by 5
XP: Taking the psychology of programming to the eXtreme.
Bryant, S. (2004) · Cited by 4
Peer's verbal interactions specificity on cognitive development
Sorsana, C. (2008) · European Journal of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17405620701859159 · Cited by 4
“Teasley (1995, p. 208) stated that ‘‘good problem solvers are more likely than poor problem solvers to state rules for their actions (before or after the actions are taken) and spontaneously make evaluative statements (Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Thorndyke & Stasz, 1980)’’.”
BackgroundA protocol analysis of use of forward and backward reasoning during valuation problem solving
Amidu, A., Boyd, D., & Gobet, F. R. (2019) · Property Management · doi:10.1108/pm-10-2018-0056 · Cited by 4
Alexander, P. A., Gans, N. E., & Maki, A. J. K. (2022) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.883370 · Cited by 5
Games for Learning and Learning Transfer
Súilleabháin, G. Ó., & Sime, J. (2010) · Advances in higher education and professional development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-879-1.ch007 · Cited by 4
Fackler, A. K., & Capps, D. K. (2023) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2023.2240524 · Cited by 4
“This literature explains how people can learn abstract ideas by uncovering the underlying structure from a set of scenarios (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989; Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Loewenstein, 2017; Loewenstein et al., 1999).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBenson, N. J. (2000) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.646 · Cited by 4
Systematic Human Learning and Generalization From a Brief Tutorial With Explanatory Feedback
Nam, A., & McClelland, J. L. (2024) · Open Mind · doi:10.1162/opmi_a_00123 · Cited by 12
“…is that participants were able to adapt a strategy specific to their initial house type onto a strategy that could be successfully applied to the orthogonal house type, perhaps relying on a structure-mapping or analogical reasoning process (Falkenhainer et al., 1989; Gick & Holyoak, 1980).”
MethodGood thinking: seven powerful ideas that influence the way we think
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-1158 · Cited by 4
Effects of Error Messages on Students’ Ability to Understand and Fix Programming Errors
Kadekar, H. B. M., Sohoni, S., & Craig, S. D. (2018) · IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie.2018.8658629 · Cited by 4
“Humans are not normally strong in generalizing from an example to a specific problem even when these problems are highly analogous [24].”
BackgroundDificultades algebraicas en la resolución de problemas por transferencia
López, V. S., Valenzuela, T., & Portolés, J. J. S. (2007) · Cited by 4
Renkl, A. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.14067-9 · Cited by 4
Automatically Providing Action Plans Helps People Complete Tasks
Kokkalis, N., Huebner, J., Diamond, S., Becker, D., Chang, M., Lee, M., Schulze, F., Koehn, T., & Klemmer, S. (2012) · Cited by 4
Bereby‐Meyer, Y., Moran, S., & Sattler, L. (2010) · Negotiation and Conflict Management Research · doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2009.00050.x · Cited by 5
Bahr, G. S., Wood, S. L., & Escandon, A. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20678-3_2 · Cited by 3
“For example, [10] presented participants with a fictitious military problem.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Holyoak, Keith J.
- ORCID
- Holyoak, Keith J.
- Venue
- Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1980-07
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 306-355
- ISSN
- 0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980169328
- Semantic Scholar
- 02c43f91ee87bf2968b57159d1cdc33dc3b1ed10
- Cited by
- 2,552
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 133 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 104 · 2013: 104 · 2012: 98
- FWCI
- 11.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (7701211)
- National Institute of Mental Health
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- analogical problem solving, analogical reasoning, transfer of learning, distractor interference, problem-solving strategies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
