Advertisement

Psychological science and analogical reminding in the design of artifacts

  • Thomas T. HewettEmail author
  • Beth Adelson
Design And Use Of On-line Resources
  • 162 Downloads

Abstract

In this article, we discuss two approaches to design currently prevalent in the field of human- computer interaction. Proponents of one approach advocate working from first principles of psychological science; practitioners of the second, engineering, approach find that successful design is often the result of analogical discovery. However, these approaches have not yet been evaluated for the usability of their methods. Can designers work in each of these ways? What are the difficulties? How can they be overcome? In this paper, we take a first step in addressing these questions. We analyze the form in which principle-based design poses its questions, thereby uncovering some of the difficulty that is encountered in this way of working. Furthermore, we analyze the form in which engineering problems are expressed and identify an advantage of this typically analogical way of working. We then suggest a way in which analogy-based design can supplement both principle-based and empirically driven design.

Keywords

Journal ofExperimental Psychology Analogical Reasoning Psychological Science Approach Advocate Active Window 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adelson, B. (1989). Uncovering how designers design.Research in Engineering Design,1, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelson, B. (1990). Recognizing novel uses for familiar plans. InProceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 253–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Adelson, B. (1996). Characterizing analogical reasoning. In M. Waldron & K. Waldron (Eds.),Mechanical design: Theory and methodology (pp. 240–263). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Adelson, B., Gentner, D., Thagard, P., Holyoak, K., Burstein, M., &Hammond, K. (1988). The role of analogy in a theory of problemsolving. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 298–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Brian, G. (1926).Edison: The man and his work. Garden City, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  6. Burstein, M. H. (1983). Causal analogical reasoning. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 1, pp. 162–182). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  7. Burstein, M. H. (1986). Concept formation by incremental analogical reasoning and debugging. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 2, pp. 351–369). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Burstein, M. [H.], &Adelson, B. (1987). Mapping and integrating partial mental models. InProceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 11–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Burstein, M. [H.], &Adelson, B. (1992). Analogical reasoning for learning. In R. Freedle (Ed.),Applications of artificial intelligence to educational testing (pp. 137–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Candy, L., &Edmonds, E. A. (1994). Artifacts and the designer’s process: Implications for computer support to design.Journal of Design Sciences & Technology,3, 11–31.Google Scholar
  11. Carbonell, J. G. (1983). Transformational analogy, problem solving and expertise acquisition. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 1, pp. 137–161). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  12. Carbonell, J. G. (1986). Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 2, pp. 372–392). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, J. M. (1991). Introduction: The Kittle House manifesto. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.),Designing interaction (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll, J. M., Kellogg, W. A., &Rosson, M. B. (1991). The task-artifact cycle. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.),Designing interaction (pp. 74–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Carroll, J. M., &Rosson, M. B. (1995). Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design by scenario. In M. Rudisill, C. Lewis, P. B. Polson, & T. D. McKay (Eds.),Human-computer interface design (pp. 229–268). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. Clement, J. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem-solving.Cognitive Science,12, 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hewett, T. T. (1989). The Drexel Disk: Hypertext-based instructional software as a tool for the exploration of a constrained knowledge space.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,21, 316–325.Google Scholar
  19. Hewett, T. T., &DePaul, J. L. (in press). Toward a human centered scientific problem solving environment. In E. Houstis, R. Bramley, & S. Gallipolous (Eds.),Scientific problem solving environments. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hewett, T. T., Perkey, M. N., &Boardway, L. (1988).The Drexel Disk 4.0 [Computer Software]. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.Google Scholar
  21. Holyoak, K., &Thagard, P. (1995).Mental leaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1984).Analogy with purpose in legal reasoning from precedents (Tech. Rep. No. 17). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science.Google Scholar
  23. Landauer, T. (1987). Psychology as a mother of invention. In S. Pemberton (Ed.),Human factors in computing systems (CHI ’97 Conference Proceedings, pp. 333–335). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  24. Landauer, T. K. (1991). Let’s get real: A position paper on the role of cognitive psychology in the design of humanly useful and usable systems. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.),Designing interaction (pp. 60–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Landauer, T. K. (1995).The trouble with computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review,63, 81–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nickerson, R. S., &Adams, M. J. (1979). Long-term memory for a common object.Cognitive Psychology,11, 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norman, D. A. (1988).The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Okagaki, L., &Koslowski, B. (1983). Another look at analogies and problem-solving.Journal of Creative Behavior,21, 11–23.Google Scholar
  30. Roediger, H. L., III, &Adelson, B. (1980). Semantic specificity in cued recall.Memory & Cognition,8, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomson, D. M. (1972). Context effects in recognition memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomson, D. M., &Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology,86, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tulving, E. (1974). Recall and recognition of semantically encoded words.Journal of Experimental Psychology,102, 778–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tulving, E., &Osler, S. (1968). Effectiveness of retrieval cues in memory for words.Journal of Experimental Psychology,77, 593–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review,80, 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tulving, E., &Watkins, M. J. (1975). Structure of memory traces.Psychological Review,82, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tulving, E., &Watkins, O. C. (1977). Recognition failure of words with a single meaning.Memory & Cognition,5, 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityCamden
  2. 2.Department of Psychology/Sociology/AnthropologyDrexel UniversityPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations