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 2,101–2,200 of 2,563
Example Output: A Sequentialist Rabbit Hole for Students Solving Concurrent Problems
Lawson, A., & Kraemer, E. T. (2024) · Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3699538.3699565
“They found that though many educational practices expect that students can perform analogical transfer, most people were unable to recognize where and how knowledge learned in one domain could be transferred to a new domain [22].”
InfluentialCognitive Engineering and Information Displays
Patterson, R., & Rolland, J. P. (2016) · Handbook of Visual Display Technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14346-0_141
Kalaitzidis, T. J. (2025) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/yh6rs_v8
Velmans's overfocused perspective on consciousness
Kinsbourne, M. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00071946
Wissensbasierte Systeme, Wissensakquisition und Knowledge Engineering
Hoppe, U. (1992) · Deutscher Universitätsverlag eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-322-85952-5_2
Has consciousness a sharp edge?
Gregson, R. A. M. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00071909
Dynamic context discrimination : psychological evidence for the Sandia Cognitive Framework.
Speed, A. (2004) · OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · doi:10.2172/975242
Hilton, C., Roberts, G., Goldwater, M., et al. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Antonietti, A. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_104
Willingham, D. T., & Riener, C. R. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316271988.007
Learning and representation of relational categories
Jung, W. (2013) · Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
Summerfield, C. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192843883.003.0007
Willingham, D. T., & Riener, C. R. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316271988.004
McAuley, M. (2008) · Massey Research Online (Massey University)
An RSCL3 tutor for debugging Pascal programs
Rubin, S. H., & Kennedy, L. (2002) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icsmc.1994.400246
Ferry, A. L., Corcoran, M. G., Williams, E., et al. (2024) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.14182
“…& Gentner, 2005; Oakes et al., 2009; Richland et al., 2017), creativity in problem-solving (e.g., Gentner et al., 2003; Gentner & Markman, 1997; Gick & Holyoak, 1980), and the acquisition of abstract rules and categories (Doumas & Hummel, 2013; Gentner & Medina, 1998; Gick & Holyoak, 1983;…”
Het ontdekken van interacties tijdens onderzoekend leren
Kosse, E. (2012)
Insight in Problem-Solving and Creative Thinking
Weisberg, R. W. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108785259.007
Analogy Game: Training and Activating Analogical Thought
Ohsawa, Y., & Nishihara, Y. (2012) · Understanding innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25480-2_5
LA MODELIZACION CON ANALOGIAS EN LOS TEXTOS DE
Secundaria, C. D. (2005)
AnalogiLead: Improving Selection of Analogical Inspirations with Chunking and Recombination
Srinivasan, A., & Chan, J. (2023) · Creativity and Cognition · doi:10.1145/3591196.3596817
“However, selecting relevant analogical leads can be challenging due to the preference of memory retrieval for near, within-domain analogies that share object attributes [14, 15, 19, 28].”
BackgroundFindley, J. D. (2010) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)
Les arguments de précédent et d'analogie en droit
Durand-Jamis, B. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/59d3a0d6z6723z417fz8370zbfa893292087
Chen, L. L. (2011) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Degrees of Similarity in Knowledge Transfer
Antonietti, A., & Maretti, C. C. (2003) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45216-4_38
“In this way, the general was able to have the parade seen and heard through the entire country at once, and thus please the dictator [5].”
BackgroundGuthrie, L. G. (2016) · Research Repository (Kingston University London)
Kalita, S. (2008) · K-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University)
Two Perspectives on Physics Problem Solving and Their Relation to Adaptive Expertise
Kuo, E. (2023) · doi:10.1063/9780735425477_010 · Cited by 1
(1993) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-1-55860-237-3.50026-1
Preservice teachers' reasoning about cases with motivational dilemmas
Owens, A. M. (2005)
Data Mining In Humans: Why Our Mind Is Isomorphic To The Web
Leiser, D. (2000)
Cognitive Development: Mathematics Learning and Instruction
Thompson, C. A., & Booth, J. L. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.92146-9
Ballantyne, N. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190847289.002.0004
Willingham, D. T., & Riener, C. R. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316271988.001
(2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-419969-9.09985-x
Chapter 5. Rules of order: Process models of human learning
Nerb, J., Ritter, F. E., & Pat Langley, B. (2007)
Preschoolers represent abstract relations predicated on kind membershipPreprint
Zhu, R. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ahwnv
Analogical Retrieval of Folktales: A Cross-Cultural Approach
Torabian, S., Chen, Z., Ober, B. A., et al. (2017) · Journal of Cognition and Culture · doi:10.1163/15685373-12340008
Begriffe und Strukturen der Case-based Evidence
Schumacher, M., & Hofmann, G. R. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-10613-3_2
Lamberti, A. (2020) · Seton Hall University eRepository (Seton Hall University)
Salica, M. A., Sawicki, L. C., Portela, M. P., et al. (2021) · Revista de Educación en Biología · doi:10.59524/2344-9225.v24.n2.29770
O’Neill, D. K. (2019) · Advances in STEM education · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29489-2_7 · Cited by 1
Haindfield, C., Cerbin, W. J., Baumann, D., & Schenck, H. (2024) · Chemistry Education Research and Practice · doi:10.1039/d3rp00322a
Taking the Case: An Evaluation of Digital Case Study Libraries
Sun, Y.-T., Vega, L. C., & McCrickard, D. S. (2007)
(1991) · Advances in human factors/ergonomics · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-88378-0.50010-2
Effects of Representations in Engineering Idea Generation Process
Viswanathan, C., & Kumar, V. (2012)
Learning Progression During Modelling-Based Teaching
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016) · Models and modeling in science education · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29039-3_10
Teaching Undergraduate Introductory Physics with an Innovative Research-Based Clicker Methodology
Ding, L., & Reay, N. W. (2014) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/book-978-1-62396-752-920251013
Raynal, L., Clément, É., Gros, H., & Sander, E. (2026) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-026-01850-0 · Cited by 1
“…instantiated the same critical structure in the context of a general who could not send his whole army along one path to capture a fortress (Gick & Holyoak, 1980), a country which offered to sell its computers to a warlike neighbor to ensure its safety (Gentner et al., 1993), and making an…”
Toward Building Science Discovery MachinesPreprint
Khalili, A., & Bouchachia, A. (2021) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.15551 · Cited by 1
“Many prominent cognitive scientists [38] consider analogy to be one of the main building blocks of human cognition.”
BackgroundPerkins, D. N., Salomon, G., & Press, P. (1992) · Cited by 355
(2010) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.002.0004
Бессознательное осознаниеPreprint
Петрийчук, Н. (2026) · doi:10.24108/preprints-3116151
Solução de problemas geometricos
Pirola, N. A. (2000) · doi:10.47749/t/unicamp.2000.206113
Piva, D. (2006) · doi:10.47749/t/unicamp.2006.391078
Sit! Stay! Self-Control!: Can Dogs Learn Impulse Control?Preprint
Singer, R. A., Silver, Z. A., Jones, C., Welch, R., Perry, I., Judy, K., & Furlong, E. E. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5384644
Regulative Epistemology in the Seventeenth Century
Ballantyne, N. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190847289.003.0002
Versuch einer modellhaft-integrativen Sicht des organisationalen Lernprozesses
Boehme, M. (1998) · Deutscher Universitätsverlag eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-663-08555-3_5
Effects of Mood on Using Analogies to Solve Problems and Reduce Conflict
Good, E. (2011) · Digital Commons @ Butler University (Butler University)
Andrews, L. O. (2016)
Towards an Adequate Cognitive Model of Analogical Mapping
Keane, M. T., & Duff, S. (1993) · Workshops in computing · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-3562-3_2
Is consciousness information processing?
Klein, R. M. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00071958
Methods of Cognitive Psychology
Willingham, D. T., & Riener, C. R. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316271988.003
Epi-arguments for epiphenomenalism
Mangan, B. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00072010
Resolving the Sunk Cost Conflict
Reinstein, A., Bayou, M. E., Williams, P. F., & Grayson, M. M. (2017) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s1474-787120170000028005 · Cited by 1
Instructional Framing and Student Learning of Community Interactions
Niosco, N. (2016) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska)
The role of visual analogy in information visualisation
Williams, J. B. (2002) · Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University)
Schema Drift: Relational Concepts and Conceptual ChangePreprint
Vagnino, R., & Walker, C. M. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5458357
Elementary probabilistic operations: a framework for probabilistic reasoning
Macho, S., & Ledermann, T. (2023) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2023.2259541
“8 The fact that quantitative inference schemas are applicable to different types of quantities, suggests that, similar to other types of problems, analogies may be helpful for solving probabilistic problems (e.g., gick & Holyoak, 1980, 1983; Holyoak & Koh, 1987).”
Background(2010) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.002.0005
Summerfield, C. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192843883.003.0008
Testing LLMs in the Wild. The case of reasoning about strategic managementPreprint
Bonaccorsi, A. J., Chiarello, F., Acampora, C., Bello, G., Niccolai, J., & Ruggeri, A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5812559
An examination of student perceptions of knowledge transfer in the first-year composition experience
Beard, B., & Jill, A. (2017)
(2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394260171.refs
(2007) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012602400-5/50012-5
Cleary, A. M., Francisco-Andres, J. M., Horne, S. N., Cuartas-Quiceno, D., & Schwartz, B. L. (2026) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2026.104006
Hamm, J. D. (2010) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
Instructional Format Design: A Teaching Strategy to Augment Cognitive Modelling
Rakers, G. (1992) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77575-8_11
Knowledge Acquisition Via Bottom-up Learning
Sun, R., Merrill, E. C., & PETERSON, T. (2000) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012443875-0/50010-0
Stoudmann, S. (2024) · SHS Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/shsconf/202419107011
Ballantyne, N. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190847289.003.0005
A “Woman’s Way of Listening” to Beethoven
Bourne, J. E. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197797204.003.0007
Scheibling‐Sève, C., Sander, E., & Pasquinelli, E. (2020) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/fs6x2
Sawyer, R. K., & Henriksen, D. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197747537.003.0018
Willingham, D. T., & Riener, C. R. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316271988.013
Willingham, D. T., & Riener, C. R. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316271988.015
Category learning does not spontaneously or explicitly transfer across modalitiesPreprint
Roark, C. L. (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/yrmnx_v2
Sense of Belonging: A Fundamental Key to Understanding the Endurance of Learning
Bibon, M. B., & Deblois, E. C. B. (2026) · Belonging. · doi:10.1177/30290805261452826
“Kole and Healy (2007) showed that knowledge retention was stronger for facts about familiar people, and we observe that reminders enhance retention when applied to related yet distinct problems (Gick & Holyoak, 1980).”
A limitation of the reflex-arc approach to consciousness
Reznick, J. S., & Zelazo, P. D. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00072046
Exploration of Innovative Spaces that Enable Communication and Collaboration in Diverse Settings
Talko, T., Martin, E., Masongsong, A., Richmond, A., Ali, H., & Adams, J. (2023) · IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie58773.2023.10343259
“The collaborative environment, therefore, should encourage positive transfer of expertise [16, 17, 18].”
BackgroundWeisberg, R. W. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108785259.001
Gabriel, G., & Mushtaq, F. (2026) · Open Mind · doi:10.1162/opmi.a.338
“…but in each case learning proceeds by improving the recognition of task-relevant patterns, increasing the availability of useful structures in long-term memory, or enhancing the quality or strength of associations between the two. can be mapped onto each other (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1980).”
The Question of Unconscious Processes in Creative Thinking
Weisberg, R. W. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108785259.008
Constructing Comparability: Analogical Reasoning for Strategic Foresight Under UncertaintyPreprint
Arabi, N., Quigley, J., Colson, A. R., Baum, T., & Quigley, K. C. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7231448
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
