Various sources of distraction during analogical reasoning.
Analogy
Distraction
Mapping
Reasoning
Journal
Memory & cognition
ISSN: 1532-5946
Titre abrégé: Mem Cognit
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0357443
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
accepted:
31
01
2022
pubmed:
26
2
2022
medline:
28
9
2022
entrez:
25
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35211867
doi: 10.3758/s13421-022-01285-3
pii: 10.3758/s13421-022-01285-3
pmc: PMC9508029
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1614-1628Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Mem Cognit. 2000 Oct;28(7):1205-12
pubmed: 11126942
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2018 May;186:18-26
pubmed: 29669270
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jan 1;24(1):87-92
pubmed: 23184588
Dev Sci. 2018 Mar;21(2):
pubmed: 28295877
Cogn Sci. 2005 Sep 10;29(5):797-806
pubmed: 21702794
Am J Psychol. 2000 Winter;113(4):501-38
pubmed: 11131741
Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(7):2020-32
pubmed: 18355881
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Aug 20;8:517
pubmed: 25191240
Dev Sci. 2011 May;14(3):516-29
pubmed: 21477191
Front Hum Neurosci. 2010 Aug 19;4:
pubmed: 20844604
Front Psychol. 2017 May 23;8:707
pubmed: 28588516
J Exp Child Psychol. 1999 May;73(1):7-44
pubmed: 10196073
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2006 Dec;2(4):531-6
pubmed: 19412501
Front Psychol. 2017 Jun 02;8:932
pubmed: 28626443
J Exp Child Psychol. 2006 Jul;94(3):249-73
pubmed: 16620867
Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Aug;17(4):569-74
pubmed: 20702879
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2011 May;2(3):266-276
pubmed: 26302075
Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2020 Sep;27(5):693-709
pubmed: 31544623
Schizophr Res Cogn. 2019 Dec 11;20:100170
pubmed: 32154122
Behav Brain Sci. 2008 Aug;31(4):357-78; discussion 378-414
pubmed: 18662435
J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Mar;16(2):260-71
pubmed: 15068596