Cynthia S Koenig | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Using dual-process theory and analogical transfer to explain facilitation on a hypothetico-deductive reasoning task.

Using the analogical transfer paradigm, the present study investigated the competing explanations of Girotto and Legrenzi (Psychological Research 51: 129-135, 1993) and Griggs, Platt, Newstead, and Jackson (Thinking and Reasoning 4: 1-14, 1998) for facilitation on the SARS version of the THOG problem, a hypothetico-deductive reasoning task. Girotto and Legrenzi argue that facilitation is based on logical analysis of the task [System 2 reasoning in Evans's (Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 454-459, 2003) dual-process account of reasoning] while Griggs et al. maintain that facilitation is due to an attentional heuristic produced by the wording of the problem (System 1 reasoning). If Girotto and Legrenzi are correct, then System 2 reasoning, which is volitional and responsible for deductive reasoning, should be elicited, and participants should comprehend the solution principle of the THOG task and exhibit analogical transfer. However, if Griggs et al. are correct, then System 1 reasoning, which is responsible for heuristic problem solving strategies such as an attentional heuristic, should occur, and participants should not abstract the solution principle and transfer should not occur. Significant facilitation (68 and 82% correct) was only observed for the two SARS source problems, but significant analogical transfer did not occur. This lack of transfer suggests that System 1 reasoning was responsible for the facilitation observed in the SARS problem, supporting Griggs et al.'s attentional heuristic explanation. The present results also underscore the explanatory value of using analogical transfer rather than facilitation as the criterion for problem understanding.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Analogical transfer in the THOG task.

The influences of surface and structural similarity on analogical transfer were examined with 318 undergraduate participants in four experiments using Needham and Amado's (1995) Pythagoras THOG problem as the source problem and Wason's standard abstract THOG task as the target problem. In Experiments 1-3, systematic changes in surface similarity between the source and target problems were introduced by changing the named exemplar, the dimensional values, and the dimensions, respectively, in the target problem. Significant transfer was obtained in all three experiments. In Experiment 4, we explored the basis of this transfer by examining three versions of the Pythagoras THOG problem, factorially combining its facilitating features as source problems. Results indicated that the inclusion of a hypothesis generation request was necessary for significant transfer. The implications of our findings for using transfer versus facilitation as the performance criterion for deductive reasoning are considered.

Humans↗