Individual differences in spontaneous analogical transfer

Abstract

Research on analogical problem solving has shown that people often fail to spontaneously notice the relevance of a semantically remote source analog when solving a target problem, although they are able to form mappings and derive inferences when given a hint to recall the source. Relatively little work has investigated possible individual differences that predict spontaneous transfer, or how such differences may interact with interventions that facilitate transfer. In this study, fluid intelligence was measured for participants in an analogical problem-solving task, using an abridged version of the Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) test. In two experiments, we systematically compared the effect of augmenting verbal descriptions of the source with animations or static diagrams. Solution rates to Duncker's radiation problem were measured across varying source presentation conditions, and participants' understanding of the relevant source material was assessed. The pattern of transfer was best fit by a moderated mediation model: the positive impact of fluid intelligence on spontaneous transfer was mediated by its influence on source comprehension; however, this path was in turn modulated by provision of a supplemental animation via its influence on comprehension of the source. Animated source depictions were most beneficial in facilitating spontaneous transfer for those participants with low scores on the fluid intelligence measure.

Individual differences in relational reasoning

“…For example, imposing a workingmemory load causes college students to make fewer relational (and more featural) matches on a picture-mapping task (Waltz, Lau, Grewal, & Holyoak, 2000). Scores on the Ravens Progressive Matrices (RPM), a standard measure of fluid intelligence (Raven, 1938), have been shown to correlate positively with the probability of spontaneous analogical transfer in a problem-solving task (Kubricht, Lu, & Holyoak, 2017). Neuropsychological evidence links impaired prefrontal functioning with greatly diminished performance on analogy tasks (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2002;Krawczyk et al, 2008;Morrison et al, 2004).…”

Both attentional control and the ability to make remote associations aid spontaneous analogical transfer

“…Rather, success on the RAT was the only significant predictor of completeness. This result was somewhat unexpected as WMC, and the closely related construct of fluid intelligence, have been found to relate to advantages in the construction of text and problem representation (Andersson, 2007;Daneman & Carpenter, 1980;Friedman & Miyake, 2000;Kubricht, Lu, & Holyoak, 2016;Singer & Ritchot, 1996;Swanson, Cooney, & Brock, 1993;Thevenot & Oakhill, 2006;Turner & Engle, 1989).…”

“…In particular, while previous research has used load-based (e.g., Waltz, Lau, Grewal, & Holyoak, 2000), or non-equivalent group designs (e.g., Richland et al, 2006Richland et al, , 2010Viskontas et al, 2004), this study used a regressionbased approach to explore how individual differences in attentional control and the ability to make remote associations might relate to successful analogical transfer, and to test the hypothesis that both abilities should predict spontaneous solutions in an analogical transfer paradigm. This approach is aligned with other recent work by Kubricht, Lu, and Holyoak (2016), but uses different individual difference measures. The use of multiple measures in this area of research is important to establish convergent validity as to what constructs are relevant.…”

“…Future research could compare the relationships as a function of having to write versus not having to write a summary of the source. This work helps to build on other research examining the role of individual differences in analogical thinking (e.g., Morrison et al, 2004;Richland et al, 2006Richland et al, , 2010 and analogical transfer (Kubricht, Lu, & Holyoak, 2016), using individual differences measures not previously examined in the analogy literature. The use of multiple measures in this area of research is important to establish convergent validity as to what constructs are relevant for transfer.…”

“…If the ability to control one's attention is related to the ability to construct a higher quality representation of a source, then spontaneous noticing of the analogy should be positively related to individual differences in attentional control. Indeed, a recent study by Kubricht, Lu, and Holyoak (2016) has demonstrated that individual differences in fluid intelligence (measured by an abbreviated Ravens' Advanced Progressive Matrices task) predicted spontaneous transfer, and that the positive impact of fluid intelligence on spontaneous transfer was mediated by its influence on source comprehension. Given the substantial relation between measures of attentional control and performance on measures of fluid intelligence ( Boyle, 2005;Kane et al, 2004;, one might predict that individual differences in attentional control could also have a positive impact on spontaneous transfer, and that this effect may be mediated by how the source case is represented.…”