Expert Analogy Use in a Naturalistic Setting

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKretz, Donald R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKrawczyk, Daniel C.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-01-29T23:14:57Z
dc.date.available2015-01-29T23:14:57Z
dc.date.created2014-11-26
dc.descriptionIncludes supplementary materials.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_US
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationKretz, Donald R. and Daniel C. Krawczyk. 2014. "Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting." Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1333.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1664-1078en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10735.1/4297
dc.identifier.volume5en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherFrontiers Research Foundationen_US
dc.relation.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01333en_US
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0 (Attribution)en_US
dc.rights©2014 The Authorsen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.source.journalFrontiers in Psychologyen_US
dc.subjectAnalogyen_US
dc.subjectComparison (Psychology)en_US
dc.subjectConceptsen_US
dc.subjectCognitionen_US
dc.titleExpert Analogy Use in a Naturalistic Settingen_US
dc.typeTexten_US
dc.type.genrearticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
BBS-DCKrawczyk-271674.81.pdf
Size:
775.27 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article
Download

Collections

Krawczyk, Daniel C.
BBS Staff and Student Research