No abstract

In three experiments, the efficiency in detecting fear-relevant and fear-irrelevant visual stimuli are compared. A visual search paradigm is used where participants are presented with matrices of different sizes (4 objects/9 objects) and must determine whether all objects are taken from the same category or whether there is a discrepant one. Results from all experiments were consistent with the threat-superiority effect. Participants were quicker when the target was threatening than when it was not. Other indicators confirmed that the detection of threatening targets involves more efficient processes (reduced slopes, absence of position effects). A crucial aspect of these experiments was the comparison of evolutionary-relevant (snakes, spiders, etc.) and modern (guns, syringes, etc.) threats. The threat-superiority effect was repeatedly found for both types of target. Stronger effects were sometimes observed for modern than for evolutionary-relevant threats. The implications for evolutionary explanations of the effect of fear on visual attention are discussed.

Laboratory studies of analogical reasoning have shown that subjects are mostly influenced by superficial similarity in the retrieval of source analogs. However, real-world investigations have demonstrated that people generate analogies using deep structural features. We conducted three experiments to determine why laboratory and real-world studies have yielded different results. In the first two experiments, we used a "production paradigm" in which subjects were asked to generate sources for a given target. Results show that the majority of the analogies that were generated displayed low levels of superficial similarity with the target problem. Moreover, most of the analogies were based on complex underlying structures. The third experiment used a "reception paradigm" methodology. The subjects had to retrieve predetermined sources instead of generate their own. In this case, retrieval was largely constrained by surface similarity. We conclude that people can use structural relations when given an appropriate task and that this ability has been underestimated in previous research on analogy.

No abstract

The ways in which analogy was used in a nonexperimental environment-politics-was investigated. We used the framework developed in analogy research to analyze the selection of analogical sources in political discourse. We took all the analogies reported in newspapers during the final week of a referendum campaign in Canada and analyzed the features of the different analogies used. We identified 234 analogies and analyzed the range over which analogies were used, semantic categories of analogies, goals of the analogizer, and emotional connotation of the analogies. Our results reveal that analogy was frequently used, that over two-thirds of the analogical sources were nonpolitical, and that many of the sources had strong emotional connotations. Furthermore, the goal of the analogizer influenced the selection of sources. We conclude that characteristics of the audience and emotionality of the source analog are important features in the selection of source analogs.