Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting

Abstract

The use of analogy is an important component of human cognition. The type of analogy we produce and communicate depends heavily on a number of factors, such as the setting, the level of domain expertise present, and the speaker's goal or intent. In this observational study, we recorded economics experts during scientific discussion and examined the categorical distance and structural depth of the analogies they produced. We also sought to characterize the purpose of the analogies that were generated. Our results supported previous conclusions about the infrequency of superficial similarity in subject-generated analogs, but also showed that distance and depth characteristics were more evenly balanced than in previous observational studies. This finding was likely due to the nature of the goals of the participants, as well as the broader nature of their expertise. An analysis of analogical purpose indicated that the generation of concrete source examples of more general target concepts was most prevalent. We also noted frequent instances of analogies intended to form visual images of source concepts. Other common purposes for analogies were the addition of colorful speech, inclusion (i.e., subsumption) of a target into a source concept, or differentiation between source and target concepts. We found no association between depth and either of the other two characteristics, but our findings suggest a relationship between purpose and distance; i.e., that visual imagery typically entailed an outside-domain source whereas exemplification was most frequently accomplished using within-domain analogies. Overall, we observed a rich and diverse set of spontaneously produced analogical comparisons. The high degree of expertise within the observed group along with the richly comparative nature of the economics discipline likely contributed to this analogical abundance.

Preventing harm related to CBT supervision: a theoretical review and preliminary framework

“…being explicitly evidence-based). In the absence of empirical evidence, these considerations are regarded as a sufficient basis to draw analogies of this kind, so as to develop a taxonomy or framework (Kretz and Krawczyk, 2015).…”

Psychological perspectives on expertise

“…In a review of research on fingerprint experts, Thompson et al ( 2014 ) concluded that such expertise relies on rapid pattern recognition and discrimination rather than in analytic thinking. In an observational study, Kretz and Krawczyk ( 2014 ) found that academic economists use many analogies in research meetings. Trench ( 2014 ), however, suggests that these results may be due to the naturalistic setting of the study, rather than expertise per se .…”

Explaining the abundance of distant analogies in naturalistic observations of experts

“…The fact that the core components of our retrieval mechanisms are invariably set to favor semantically close base analogs (Gentner et al, 1993 ; Trench and Minervino, 2014 ) suggests that the abovementioned generative mechanisms could possibly account for the frequency and the diversity of the analogies generated by experts. Future studies, both naturalistic and experimental, are required to understand how these overlooked analogy generation methods interact with the variety of goals that realistic analogy generation can pursue, as eloquently revealed by Kretz and Krawczyk's ( 2014 ) detailed analysis of the analogies produced by expert economists.…”

“…While molecular biologists (Dunbar, 1997 ) and psychologists (Saner and Schunn, 1999 ) still exhibited mostly within-domain analogizing, the observation of journalists and politicians (Blanchette and Dunbar, 2001 ), teachers (Richland et al, 2004 ), managers (Bearman et al, 2007 ) and design engineers (Christensen and Schunn, 2007 ) showed a more frequent use of long-distance analogies. The naturalistic study by Kretz and Krawczyk ( 2014 ) on the use of analogies by economists also demonstrates an abundance of distant analogies in the sevice of an impressive variety of communicative purposes, most of which were not evident in prior research. These goals included the generation of concrete source examples of more general target concepts, the formation of visual images of source concepts, the addition of colorful speech, the inclusion of a target into a source concept, or the differentiation between source and target concepts.…”