Various sources of distraction during analogical reasoning.
Reasoning by analogy requires mapping relational correspondence between two situations to transfer information from the more familiar (source) to the less familiar situation (target). However, the presence of distractors may lead to invalid conclusions based on semantic or perceptual similarities in...
| Published in: | Memory & Cognition Vol. 50; no. 7; pp. 1614 - 1629 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Oct2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=159303715&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 159303715 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0090502X MEG jtl: Memory & Cognition issn: 0090502X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2022 vid: 50 iid: 7 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 159303715 10.3758/s13421-022-01285-3 ppf: 1614 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1.1MB tig: atl: Various sources of distraction during analogical reasoning. aug: au: Kucwaj, Hanna Ociepka, Michał Chuderski, Adam affil: Institute of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, Grodzka 52, 31-044, Krakow, Poland su: Semantics Distraction Cognition Task performance Sensory perception Thought & thinking Brain mapping Descriptive statistics Data analysis software sug: subj: Semantics Distraction Cognition Task performance Sensory perception Thought & thinking Brain mapping Descriptive statistics Data analysis software keyword: Analogy Mapping Reasoning Analogy Mapping Reasoning ab: Reasoning by analogy requires mapping relational correspondence between two situations to transfer information from the more familiar (source) to the less familiar situation (target). However, the presence of distractors may lead to invalid conclusions based on semantic or perceptual similarities instead of on relational correspondence. To understand the role of distraction in analogy making, we examined semantically rich four-term analogies (A:B::C:?) and scene analogies, as well as semantically lean geometric analogies and the matrix task tapping general reasoning. We examined (a) what types of lures were most distracting, (b) how the two semantically rich analogy tasks were related, and (c) how much variance in the scores could be attributed to general reasoning ability. We observed that (a) in four-term analogies the distractors semantically related to C impacted performance most strongly, as compared to the perceptual, categorical, and relational distractors, but the two latter distractor types also mattered; (b) distraction sources in four-term and scene analogies were virtually unrelated; and (c) general reasoning explained the largest part of variance in resistance to distraction. The results suggest that various sources of distraction operate at different stages of analogical reasoning and differently affect specific analogy paradigms. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|