Abstract
Analogy was studied in real-world engineering design, using the in vivo method. Analogizing was found to occur frequently, entailing a roughly equal amount of within- and between-domain analogies. In partial support for theories of unconscious plagiarism (Brown & Murphy, 1989; Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996) and Ward’s (1994) path-of-least-resistance model, it was found that the reference to exemplars (in the form of prototypes) significantly reduced the number of between-domain analogies between source and target, as compared with using sketches or no external representational systems. Analogy served three functions in relation to novel design concepts: identifying problems, solving problems, and explaining concepts. Problem identifying analogies were mainly within domain, explanatory analogies were mainly between domain, and problem-solving analogies were a mixture of within- and between-domain analogies.
References
Bearman, C. R., Ball, L. J., &Ormerod, T. C. (2002). An exploration of real-world analogical problem solving in novices. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.),Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 101–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beveridge, M., &Parkins, E. (1987). Visual representation in analogical problem solving.Memory & Cognition,15, 230–237.
Bonnardel, N., &Marmèche, E. (2004). Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: Towards stimulating analogical thinking.Creativity & Innovation Management,13, 176–186.
Brown, A. S., &Murphy, D. R. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 432–442.
Casakin, H. (2003). Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process: Expert versus novice performance. In N. Cross & E. Edmonds (Eds.),Expertise in design. Sydney: University of Technology, Creativity & Cognition Press.
Casakin, H., &Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education.Design Studies,20, 153–175.
Christensen, B. T. (2005). A methodology for studying design cognition in the real-world [Online]. InDigital proceedings from NORDES: The First Nordic Design Research Conference. Copenhagen.
Christiaans, H., &Andel, J. v. (1993). The effects of examples on the use of knowledge in a student design activity: The case of the “flying Dutchman.”Design Studies,14, 58–74.
Craig, D. L., Nersessian, N. J., &Catrambone, R. (2002). The role of diagrams and diagrammatic affordances in analogy. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.),Proceedings from the 24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 250–255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dahl, D. W., &Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation.Journal of Marketing Research,39, 47–60.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461–493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dunbar, K. (2001a). The analogical paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings yet so difficult in the psychological laboratory. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.),The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 313–334). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dunbar, K. (2001b). What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.),Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunbar, K., &Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,5, 334–339.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., &Smith, S. M. (1992).Creative cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gentner, D. (1998). Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.),A companion to cognitive science (pp. 107–113). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., &Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness.Cognitive Psychology,25, 524–575.
Ghiselin, B. (1954).The creative process: A symposium. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goel, V. (1995).Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Goldschmidt, G. (2001). Visual analogy: A strategy for design reasoning and learning. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.),Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 199–220). Amsterdan: Elsevier.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1961).Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper & Row.
Holyoak, K. J., &Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer.Memory & Cognition,15, 332–340.
Holyoak, K. J., &Thagard, P. (1995).Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jaarsveld, S., &van Leeuwen, C. (2005). Sketches from a design process: Creative cognition inferred from intermediate products.Cognitive Science,29, 79–101.
Jansson, D. G., &Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation.Design Studies,12, 3–11.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Analogy and the exercise of creativity. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 313–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanisation in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung.Psychological Monographs,54(Whole No. 248).
Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness.Journal of Comparative Psychology,8, 181–194.
Marsh, R. L., Bink, M. L., &Hicks, J. L. (1999). Conceptual priming in a generative problem-solving task.Memory & Cognition,27, 355–363.
Marsh, R. L., &Bower, G. H. (1993). Eliciting cruptomnesia: Unconscious plagiarism in a puzzle task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 673–688.
Marsh, R. L., &Landau, J. D. (1995). Item availability in cryptomnesia: Assessing its role in two paradigms of unconscious plagiarism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1568–1582.
Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., &Hicks, J. L. (1996). How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity.Memory & Cognition,24, 669–680.
Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., &Hicks, J. L. (1997). Contributions of inadequate source monitoring to unconscious plagiarism during idea generation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 886–897.
Marsh, R. L., Ward, T. B., &Landau, J. D. (1999). The inadvertent use of prior knowledge in a generative cognitive task.Memory & Cognition,27, 94–105.
McGown, A., Green, G., &Rodgers, P. A. (1998). Visible ideas: Information patterns of conceptual sketch activity.Design Studies,19, 431–453.
Purcell, A. T., &Gero, J. S. (1992). Effects of examples on the results of a design activity.Knowledge-Based Systems,5, 82–91.
Römer, A., Pache, M., Weisshahn, G., Lindemann, U., &Hacker, W. (2001). Effort-saving product representations in design—results of a questionnaire survey.Design Studies,22, 473–491.
Roozenburg, N. F. M., &Eekels, J. (1996).Product design: Fundamentals and methods. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Shepard, R. N. (1978). Externalization of mental images and the act of creation. In B. S. Randawa & W. E. Cofman (Eds.),Visual learning, thinking, and communication (pp. 133–189). New York: Academic Press.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., &Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task.Memory & Cognition,21, 837–845.
Terninko, J., Zusman, A., &Zlotin, B. (1998).Systematic innovation An introduction to TRIZ. Boca Raton: St Lucie Press.
Vosniadou, S., &Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 1–7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation.Cognitive Psychology,27, 1–40.
Ward, T. B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas? In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.),The creative cognition approach (pp. 157–178). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ward, T. B. (1998). Analogical distance and purpose in creative thought: Mental leaps versus mental hops. In K. J. Holyoak, D. Gentner, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.),Advances in analogy research: Integration of theory and data from the cognitive, computational, and neural sciences (pp. 221–230). Sofia: New Bulgarian University.
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., Sifonis, C. M., Dodds, R. A., &Saunders, K. N. (2002). The role of graded category structure in imaginative thought.Memory & Cognition,30, 199–216.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Christensen, B.T., Schunn, C.D. The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35, 29–38 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195939
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195939
Keywords
- Design Object
- External Support
- Analogical Reasoning
- External Representation
- Medical Plastic