Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting

Donald R. Kretz, Daniel C. Krawczyk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The use of analogy is an important component of human cognition. The type of analogy we produce and communicate depends heavily on a number of factors, such as the setting, the level of domain expertise present, and the speaker's goal or intent. In this observational study, we recorded economics experts during scientific discussion and examined the categorical distance and structural depth of the analogies they produced. We also sought to characterize the purpose of the analogies that were generated. Our results supported previous conclusions about the infrequency of superficial similarity in subject-generated analogs, but also showed that distance and depth characteristics were more evenly balanced than in previous observational studies. This finding was likely due to the nature of the goals of the participants, as well as the broader nature of their expertise. An analysis of analogical purpose indicated that the generation of concrete source examples of more general target concepts was most prevalent. We also noted frequent instances of analogies intended to form visual images of source concepts. Other common purposes for analogies were the addition of colorful speech, inclusion (i.e., subsumption) of a target into a source concept, or differentiation between source and target concepts. We found no association between depth and either of the other two characteristics, but our findings suggest a relationship between purpose and distance; i.e., that visual imagery typically entailed an outside-domain source whereas exemplification was most frequently accomplished using within-domain analogies. Overall, we observed a rich and diverse set of spontaneously produced analogical comparisons. The high degree of expertise within the observed group along with the richly comparative nature of the economics discipline likely contributed to this analogical abundance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number1333
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Volume5
Issue numberNOV
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Observational Studies
Economics
Imagery (Psychotherapy)
Cognition

Keywords

  • Conflict adaptation
  • Congruency sequence effect
  • Contingency
  • Executive control
  • ISPC effect
  • Response conflict
  • Response conflict adaptation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting. / Kretz, Donald R.; Krawczyk, Daniel C.

In: Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 5, No. NOV, 1333, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7cd17452b6914e4d970e6a7187befd25,
title = "Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting",
abstract = "The use of analogy is an important component of human cognition. The type of analogy we produce and communicate depends heavily on a number of factors, such as the setting, the level of domain expertise present, and the speaker's goal or intent. In this observational study, we recorded economics experts during scientific discussion and examined the categorical distance and structural depth of the analogies they produced. We also sought to characterize the purpose of the analogies that were generated. Our results supported previous conclusions about the infrequency of superficial similarity in subject-generated analogs, but also showed that distance and depth characteristics were more evenly balanced than in previous observational studies. This finding was likely due to the nature of the goals of the participants, as well as the broader nature of their expertise. An analysis of analogical purpose indicated that the generation of concrete source examples of more general target concepts was most prevalent. We also noted frequent instances of analogies intended to form visual images of source concepts. Other common purposes for analogies were the addition of colorful speech, inclusion (i.e., subsumption) of a target into a source concept, or differentiation between source and target concepts. We found no association between depth and either of the other two characteristics, but our findings suggest a relationship between purpose and distance; i.e., that visual imagery typically entailed an outside-domain source whereas exemplification was most frequently accomplished using within-domain analogies. Overall, we observed a rich and diverse set of spontaneously produced analogical comparisons. The high degree of expertise within the observed group along with the richly comparative nature of the economics discipline likely contributed to this analogical abundance.",
keywords = "Conflict adaptation, Congruency sequence effect, Contingency, Executive control, ISPC effect, Response conflict, Response conflict adaptation",
author = "Kretz, {Donald R.} and Krawczyk, {Daniel C.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01333",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "Frontiers in Psychology",
issn = "1664-1078",
publisher = "Frontiers Research Foundation",
number = "NOV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting

AU - Kretz, Donald R.

AU - Krawczyk, Daniel C.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The use of analogy is an important component of human cognition. The type of analogy we produce and communicate depends heavily on a number of factors, such as the setting, the level of domain expertise present, and the speaker's goal or intent. In this observational study, we recorded economics experts during scientific discussion and examined the categorical distance and structural depth of the analogies they produced. We also sought to characterize the purpose of the analogies that were generated. Our results supported previous conclusions about the infrequency of superficial similarity in subject-generated analogs, but also showed that distance and depth characteristics were more evenly balanced than in previous observational studies. This finding was likely due to the nature of the goals of the participants, as well as the broader nature of their expertise. An analysis of analogical purpose indicated that the generation of concrete source examples of more general target concepts was most prevalent. We also noted frequent instances of analogies intended to form visual images of source concepts. Other common purposes for analogies were the addition of colorful speech, inclusion (i.e., subsumption) of a target into a source concept, or differentiation between source and target concepts. We found no association between depth and either of the other two characteristics, but our findings suggest a relationship between purpose and distance; i.e., that visual imagery typically entailed an outside-domain source whereas exemplification was most frequently accomplished using within-domain analogies. Overall, we observed a rich and diverse set of spontaneously produced analogical comparisons. The high degree of expertise within the observed group along with the richly comparative nature of the economics discipline likely contributed to this analogical abundance.

AB - The use of analogy is an important component of human cognition. The type of analogy we produce and communicate depends heavily on a number of factors, such as the setting, the level of domain expertise present, and the speaker's goal or intent. In this observational study, we recorded economics experts during scientific discussion and examined the categorical distance and structural depth of the analogies they produced. We also sought to characterize the purpose of the analogies that were generated. Our results supported previous conclusions about the infrequency of superficial similarity in subject-generated analogs, but also showed that distance and depth characteristics were more evenly balanced than in previous observational studies. This finding was likely due to the nature of the goals of the participants, as well as the broader nature of their expertise. An analysis of analogical purpose indicated that the generation of concrete source examples of more general target concepts was most prevalent. We also noted frequent instances of analogies intended to form visual images of source concepts. Other common purposes for analogies were the addition of colorful speech, inclusion (i.e., subsumption) of a target into a source concept, or differentiation between source and target concepts. We found no association between depth and either of the other two characteristics, but our findings suggest a relationship between purpose and distance; i.e., that visual imagery typically entailed an outside-domain source whereas exemplification was most frequently accomplished using within-domain analogies. Overall, we observed a rich and diverse set of spontaneously produced analogical comparisons. The high degree of expertise within the observed group along with the richly comparative nature of the economics discipline likely contributed to this analogical abundance.

KW - Conflict adaptation

KW - Congruency sequence effect

KW - Contingency

KW - Executive control

KW - ISPC effect

KW - Response conflict

KW - Response conflict adaptation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923377897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923377897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01333

DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01333

M3 - Article

VL - 5

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

SN - 1664-1078

IS - NOV

M1 - 1333

ER -