Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models

Three theories of analogy have been proposed that are supported by computational models and data from experiments on human analogical abilities. In this article we show how these theories can be unified within a common metatheoretical framework that distinguishes among levels of informational, behavioral, and hardware constraints. This framework clarifies the distinctions among three computational models in the literature: the Analogical Constraint Mapping Engine (ACME), the Structure-Mapping Engine (SME), and the Incremental Analogy Machine (IAM). We then go on to develop a methodology for the comparative testing of these models. In two different manipulations of an analogical mapping task we compare the results of computational experiments with these models against the results of psychological experiments. In the first experiment we show that increasing the number of similar elements in two analogical domains decreases the response time taken to reach the correct mapping for an analogy problem. In the second psychological experiment we find that the order in which the elements of the two domains are presented has significant facilitative effects on the ease of analogical mapping. Of the three models, only IAM embodies behavioral constraints and predicts both of these results. Finally, the immediate implications of these results for analogy research are discussed, along with the wider implications the research has for cognitive science methodology.     

A quasi-experimental investigation of message appeal variations on organ donor registration rates.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 6,000 Americans die every year awaiting an organ transplant. Health promotion interventions may alleviate the shortage of viable organs by increasing the number of registered organ donors. This study is the first to evaluate the differential effectiveness of various organ donor messages in naturalistic settings. DESIGN: A 4 (Appeal)x4 (Exemplar)x4 (Location) counterbalanced quasi-experimental design was implemented. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The behavioral outcome measure was the number of individuals who registered to be organ donors at computer kiosks. RESULTS: A number of significant main effects and interactions emerged. Most notably, of the 4 different appeals (counterargument, emotional, motivating action, dissonance), counterargument was by far the most efficacious, especially in academic-type settings (library, university, community college); the emotional appeal was most successful in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study have implications for both organ donor investigations and health campaign research in general. Statistical interactions highlight the importance of evaluating multiple exemplars in multiple locations for each type of appeal when conducting health campaign research.     

The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes

We have recently cast doubt (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, & Dori, 1998) on the view that encoding and retrieval processes in human memory are similar. Divided attention at encoding was shown to reduce memory performance significantly, whereas divided attention at retrieval affected memory performance only minimally. In this article we examined this asymmetry further by using more difficult retrieval tasks, which require substantial effort. In one experiment, subjects had to encode and retrieve lists of unfamiliar name-nouns combinations attached to people's photographs, and in the other, subjects had to encode words that were either strong or weak associates of the cues presented with them and then to retrieve those words with either intra- or extra-list cues. The results of both experiments showed that unlike division of attention at encoding, which reduces memory performance markedly, division of attention at retrieval has almost no effect on memory performance, but was accompanied by an increase in secondary-task cost. Such findings again illustrated the resiliency of retrieval processes to manipulations involving the withdrawal of attention. We contend that retrieval processes are obligatory or protected, but that they require attentional resources for their execution.