The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design

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

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beveridge, M., &Parkins, E. (1987). Visual representation in analogical problem solving.Memory & Cognition,15, 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonnardel, N., &Marmèche, E. (2004). Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: Towards stimulating analogical thinking.Creativity & Innovation Management,13, 176–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, A. S., &Murphy, D. R. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 432–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Casakin, H., &Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education.Design Studies,20, 153–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dahl, D. W., &Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation.Journal of Marketing Research,39, 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dunbar, K., &Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,5, 334–339.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., &Smith, S. M. (1992).Creative cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gentner, D. (1998). Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.),A companion to cognitive science (pp. 107–113). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ghiselin, B. (1954).The creative process: A symposium. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goel, V. (1995).Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gordon, W. J. J. (1961).Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Holyoak, K. J., &Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer.Memory & Cognition,15, 332–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Holyoak, K. J., &Thagard, P. (1995).Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jaarsveld, S., &van Leeuwen, C. (2005). Sketches from a design process: Creative cognition inferred from intermediate products.Cognitive Science,29, 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jansson, D. G., &Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation.Design Studies,12, 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanisation in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung.Psychological Monographs,54(Whole No. 248).

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Marsh, R. L., Bink, M. L., &Hicks, J. L. (1999). Conceptual priming in a generative problem-solving task.Memory & Cognition,27, 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., &Hicks, J. L. (1996). How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity.Memory & Cognition,24, 669–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McGown, A., Green, G., &Rodgers, P. A. (1998). Visible ideas: Information patterns of conceptual sketch activity.Design Studies,19, 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Purcell, A. T., &Gero, J. S. (1992). Effects of examples on the results of a design activity.Knowledge-Based Systems,5, 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Roozenburg, N. F. M., &Eekels, J. (1996).Product design: Fundamentals and methods. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., &Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task.Memory & Cognition,21, 837–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Terninko, J., Zusman, A., &Zlotin, B. (1998).Systematic innovation An introduction to TRIZ. Boca Raton: St Lucie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation.Cognitive Psychology,27, 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bo T. Christensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Design Object
  • External Support
  • Analogical Reasoning
  • External Representation
  • Medical Plastic