Abstract
A series of interventions aimed at eliciting an abstract encoding of learning contents succeeded in rendering them more retrievable during the processing of analogous situations. However, this approach is not applicable to learning contents that had not been originally encoded in ways that highlighted their abstract features. Drawing on computational accounts of the retrieval advantage of abstracting source analogs, the late abstraction principle posits that a comparable retrieval advantage should be obtained by abstracting target situations. We begin by reviewing the initial experimental evidence for the psychological reality of this computational insight: the fact that comparing two analogous situations increases access to distant analogs, as compared to their independent presentation. After discussing the limitations of the target-comparison strategy for being autonomously implemented by students, we review very recent interventions designed to help students capitalize on the late abstraction principle in truly autonomous ways. We end by describing how this finding was simulated within extant computational models of similarity-based retrieval, as well as by discussing theoretical objections to the claim that late abstraction can boost the retrieval of learning contents whose structural features had not been originally highlighted.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Belenky, D., & Schalk, L. (2014). The effects of idealized and grounded materials on learning, transfer, and interest: An organizing framework for categorizing external knowledge representations. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 27–50.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2001). Analogical problem construction and transfer in mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 21, 137–150.
Chen, Z., Mo, L., & Honomichl, R. (2004). Having the memory of an elephant: Long-term retrieval and use of analogues in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 415–433.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (5, Whole No. 270).
Dunbar, K. (2001). The analogical paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings, yet so difficult in the psychology laboratory? In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 313–334). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
D’Angelo, V. & Trench, M. (2020). Enhancing distant analogical retrieval via generating abstract redescriptions of the target. Paper presented at the Conceptual Abstraction and Analogy in Natural and Artificial Systems Symposium of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC.
Falkenhainer, B. (1990). Analogical interpretation in context. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 69–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1–63.
Finlayson, M., & Winston, P. (2006). Analogical retrieval via intermediate features: The goldilocks hypothesis (MIT CSAIL Technical Report No. MIT-CSAIL-TR-2006-071). hdl:1721.1/34635.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical transfer. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2004). Analogical encoding: Facilitating knowledge transfer and integration. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 450–455). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Forbus, K. (2009). Reviving inert knowledge: Analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science, 3, 1343–1382.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431–467.
Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (2000). Metaphor and knowledge change. In E. Dietrich & A. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 295–342). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.
Hofstadter, D. R. (1985). Metamagical Themas: Questing for the essence of mind and pattern. London: Viking.
Hofstadter, D. R., & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.
Hofstadter, D. R., & the Fluid Analogies Research Group. (1995). Fluid concepts and creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. New York: Basic Books.
Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427–466.
Keane, M. T. (1985). On drawing analogies when solving problems: A theory and test of solution generation in an analogical problem solving task. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 449–458.
Kurtz, K., & Loewenstein, J. (2007). Converging on a new role for analogy in problem solving and retrieval: When two problems are better than one. Memory & Cognition, 35, 334–341.
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 305–342.
Loewenstein, J. (2010). How one’s hook is baited matters for catching an analogy. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 53, pp. 149–182). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Mandler, J. M., & Orlich, F. (1993). Analogical transfer: The roles of schema abstraction and awareness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 485–487.
Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 592–613.
Medin, D. L., & Ross, B. H. (1989). The specific character of abstract thought: Categorization, problem-solving, and induction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 189–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Minervino, R., Olguín, V., & Trench, M. (2017). Promoting interdomain analogical transfer: When creating a problem helps to solve a problem. Memory & Cognition, 45, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0655-2
Minervino, R., Trench, M., & Oberholzer, N. (2009). Concrete and imagined simulations of situation models enhance transfer of solutions to structurally different algebra word problems. In N. A. Taatgen & H. Van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1394–1399). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. MORAVIA 82.
Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra word problem comprehension and its implications for the design of computer learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 329–389.
Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562.
Rudnitsky, A., Etheredge, S., Freeman, S. J. M., & Gilbert, T. (1995). Learning to solve addition and subtraction word problems through a structure-plus-writing approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 467–486.
Thagard, P., Holyoak, K., Nelson, G., & Gochfeld, D. (1990). Analog retrieval by constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 259–310.
Trench, M., Tavernini, M., & Goldstone, R. L. (2017). Promoting spontaneous analogical transfer by idealizing target representations. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1206–1211). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Trench, M., Minervino, R.A. (2020). Boosting Retrieval Via Target Elaborations (the “Late Abstraction Principle”). In: Distant Connections: The Memory Basis of Creative Analogy. SpringerBriefs in Psychology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52545-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52545-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52547-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52545-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)