Running head: ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 1

Applying Imagery and Contextual Relevance to Analogical Problem Solving

Hunter Coury and Chelsea Elder

Lab in Cognition

Northeastern University
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 2

Abstract

Gick and Holyoak (1980) provided a very comprehensive investigation of analogical

problem solving. In this type of problem solving, individuals use an abstract understanding of a

simple problem to find a valid solution to a problem whose subject matter is extensively

unfamiliar. Successful analogical problem solving occurs in various steps. Our research

investigates the importance of how we learn the components of the source problem and its

subsequent effects. More specifically, we seek to establish the effect of imagery presence and

contextual relevance on successful analogical problem solving. We use the Dual-Coding Theory

and the Levels of Processing Theory to substantiate this. In order to view this interaction, we

tested a group of college students to view a source problem that was either relevant to college or

not. Furthermore, we supplemented imagery to these same source problems so that we may

understand their influence. Based on previous theory, we understand semantic relevance and

processing information in dual modalities to enhance encoding processes and later recall. We

assume these theories concerning how we encode information to have related applications.

Similar to their effect on memory, we reason that encoding information in two modalities and

with contextual relevance will enhance problems solving. We hypothesize that induction of

contextual/semantic relevance and the presence of an image will cause individuals to rate the

analogous solution as most valid, as compared to other, valid solutions. In our results, we find a

significant effect of imagery on analogical problem solving, while semantic relevance does not

present any effect. We also examine their influence on cognitive flexibility to create a substantial

review of how learning under various circumstances affects problem solving.

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 3

Analogical problem solving demands the participant to use an abstract understanding of a

simple domain to find a valid solution to a difficult problem. When thinking about this method of

problem solving, we begin to reason about how we conceptualize new information and

subsequently apply it. Learning is a process of schema development; it requires assimilation and

accommodation. The use of an analogy simplifies these otherwise, difficult processes. This is

how we may come to understand and appreciate challenging concepts. It is a process of

comparing old information to new information and thus the use analogies in everyday life is

quite pervasive. To understand new information (especially in an academic setting) requires a

preexisting network of other information. We assume our means of comprehension and problem

solving to be influenced by multiple factors. Environmental factors often generate influences on

cognitive processes. In this paper, we review current literature and assemble an experiment with

the intention to find exactly what these factors are. This type of problem allows us more insight

into cognitive reasoning, schema development, and our ability to make crucial connections of

preexisting knowledge to novel information. We take our preceding knowledge of the Dual

Coding Theory and the Deep Processing Theory and apply them to the domain of analogical

problem solving. In this interaction of theories in cognition, we attach a new emphasis and

understanding of analogies in learning. More specifically, how we may manipulate the

presentation of information to enhance the problem-solving process.

Past researchers have investigated analogical problem solving and effectively provide us

with our understanding of analogical problem solving. Gick and Holyoak (1980) presented an

extensive report on analogical problem solving. They understood it to be a process of using

information from one domain (a source problem) to help solve a problem from a disparate

domain (a target problem). A source problem is characterized as a problem solved in the past,
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 4

which contains simple subject matter. Generally, the answer to this problem is provided. A target

problem is a problem that is to be answered using the source problem. The subject matter is

difficult and unfamiliar to an individuals domain of general knowledge. Gick and Holyoak

(1980) completed this by using the Fortress Problem (among others) as the source problem and

the Tumor Problem as the target problem. They stressed that the semantic consistencies of each

problem are essential to ensuring a legitimate and apparent analogy between the two problems.

By asking the participants to give their own answers they recorded the participants ability to

recognize the analogy, connect the analogy to the target problem, and then successfully apply it.

In their main conclusion, they resolved that solutions to complex problems can be developed

using analogous problems from different domains, especially when hinted that an analogy

exists between the two problems.

For the purposes of our study, we present the ways in which individuals mentally

represent information and how these perceived representations vary by circumstance. They

further detailed the factors needed to reason about difficult problems when using preceding

information. Gick and Holyoak suggest that understanding the abstraction of the source problem

is essential to noticing the analogy. This comprehension is necessary to guide the problem-

solving process. Sternberg (1977) investigates this idea of having to understand the given

material by concluding the importance of representations (schemas) of analogies in problem

solving. This is the part of problem solving that our experiment plans to capitalize on, guiding

the process of schema development and seeing its effects on problems solving. Kintsch and Van

Dijks (1978) further add to this by arguing that analogies have multiple levels of abstraction. The

type of abstraction most suitable for analogical problem solving are named, Macrostructures

which are a broad set of concepts that allow the application of one solution to other problems.
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 5

In review of our study, we assume the importance of how we obtain this most ideal type

of representation. To investigate the procedures needed to obtain this, we regard two applicable,

cognitive theories of how we encode information: The Levels of Processing Theory and the

Dual-Coding Theory. Craik and Tulving (1975) investigated how the different ways in which we

process information can affect how we perceive and therefore later apply that information.

Conditions that demand elaborative processing (or deep level processing) encouraged better

recall as compared to conditions that demanded structural processing (or shallow level

processing). By perceiving words that demand more effortful encoding and by using words

intrinsically familiar to ones pre-existing semantic network, the participants displayed greater

information recall. To expand on the importance of encoding, we look to the effects of

processing information in dual modalities. The Dual-Coding Theory proposes that we represent

visual information and verbal information in separate, yet related systems. When observing

information in both verbal and visual contexts, participants tend to recall that same information

significantly more often when the information is encoded in a single modality. Assessing

information in both modalities construct more comprehensive schemas, needed to later apply that

information. Specifically, in the case of Clark and Paivio (1991), they apply the theory to

educational practices. They describe the Dual-Coding Theory to be necessary in creating models

of learning. They argue that processing content in multiple modalities is essential to the

representation and comprehension of knowledge.

In consideration of the previously discussed theoretical concepts, we ask the following.

Does the inclusion of semantic relevance in a source problem improve a participant's ability to

problem solve analogously as compared to a participant provided with source problem that is

non-relevant? Does the presence of visual information/representation aid individuals in solving

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 6

analogical problem sets as compared to individuals who do not perceive any imagery? Is there an

interaction between contextual relevance and visual information as it applies to analogical

problem solving?

The proposed research questions are created with the intention of understanding

analogical problem solving and the mechanisms that influence it. We use Gick and Holyoak

(1980) to reproduce their most basic outline to administer analogical problem sets. To support

our research goals, we assume the contingency between Dual Coding Theory and the Levels of

Processing Theory to problem solving processes. With this, we hope to illustrate the effects of

imagery and contextual relevance. With the inclination of dual-coding and deep level processing

to enhance memory, we assume these effects will extend to other cognitive processes. By

translating the non-college relevant fortress problem into the college-relevant problem, we

maximize the relevancy of the domain. By adding images, we increase ones capacity for finding

abstractions from the given information. These manipulations decrease for these reasons, we

hypothesize that the relevant condition will result in higher validity ratings to the analogous

solutions as compared to the ratings of the non-relevant conditions. We support this prediction

with the findings of Craik and Tulving (1975). We also hypothesize that the participants of the

conditions that include supplementary imagery will rate the analogous solution higher than the

conditions that do not include imagery. We support this prediction with Clark and Paivio (1991).

We suppose that with an interaction between the two variables, the relevant condition that also

has supplementary imagery will rate the analogous solution as most valid as compared to the

other experimental groups.

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 7

Our experiment uses a method similar to Gick and Holyoak (1980) to address our

presented research questions. The source problem is presented to the participant before the target

problem. In our study, we present a distraction task between the two problems to ensure the

contingency between the problems is not easily recognized. Our variables of visual

representations and semantic relevance is used to manipulate the context in which we present the

source problem, and hence, how the participants mentally represent the information of the source

problem. Past research has not attended to the potential effect this may of on analogical problem

solving. We attend to this concept by including imagery and contextual relevance in light of the

Fortress Problem (Gick and Holyoak - 1980) as our source problem and the Tumor/Radiation

Problem (Gick and Holyoak - 1980) as our target problem. To test for relevance, we created a

relevant problem. This problem was built off of the exact framework of the Fortress problem, but

made relevant to our college participant sample. To test the effect of imagery, we created images

as to match the setting of the Fortress Problem and the School Problem. In a cross comparison of

these variables, we tested the four conditions: Fortress Problem (non-relevant, no image),

College Problem (relevant, no image), Visual Fortress Problem (non-relevant, image present),

and Visual College Problem (relevant, image present). Past research relied on the participants to

produce their own answers to the target problem. Instead, we provided the answers and asked the

participants to judge how valid each answer is.

By viewing the validity rating as opposed to free response, we are able to assess

analogical problems by analogous validity, analogous endorsement, and cognitive flexibility. In

our conclusion, we conclude the effects of visual representations and contextual relevance on

analogical problem solving.

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 8

Method

Participants

32 undergraduate students of Northeastern University participated in this study. The ages of these

participants ranged from 18 to 24 years of age. 2 of these participants were male. 30 of these

participants were female. 31 of the participants were native English speakers. We recruited

through on-campus student organizations and psychology courses. No demographics relating to

race were taken into consideration. After completion, the participants were offered a cupcake for

their participation.

Method

The entirety of the experiment was compiled into paper surveys. There were four

different packets for each experimental group: non-college relevant fortress Problem, non-

college relevant fortress problem with image, college-relevant problem, and college-relevant

problem with image. The packets that we used to examine the participants had very similar

contents and followed a very similar order. Each part of our materials was used on separate

pages. These pages are described below.

Informed Consent. We asked every participant to complete the informed consent form.

This detailed their voluntary commitment to the study, being over eighteen years of age, as

well as other standard protocol.

Source Problem. In all conditions, the answer to the source problem was provided. At the

top of the page of the source problem, the direction read, Please take time to review the

story provided below. If the problem also had an image to accompany it on the next page,

the directions stated, Please take time to review the story below. This page behind this
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 9

includes an image that accompanies the story. Please review this image as well. Below the

direction, we included the Fortress Problem (Figure 1) or the College Problem (Figure 2),

depending on condition.

Image. The images were present in only two of the four conditions. The visual of the

Fortress Problem may be seen in Figure 3 and the visual for the School Problem may be

viewed in Figure 4. The images presented display of a top-down view of the setting related

to the given problem. Both images were colored and had a key to point out what each

figure meant in the problem. We created these images in Microsoft Word.

Distraction Task. The distraction task was a demographics worksheet. The worksheet

specified for the participant to provide information to each question asked. It further

specified that this information is held anonymously. The participants gave their answers on

the lines provided next to each question. The questions asked the participants to provide

their age, gender, enrollment status in NU, major, minor, graduation date, participation in

NU clubs, and if English is their first language.

Target Problem. All experimenter packets had the tumor problem. This problem be viewed

in Figure 5. The problem outlines the that a ray would destroy a patients tumor. However,

the ray is so powerful that using it would destroy healthy, surrounding tissue. The problem

asks how they may overcome this constraint.

Validity Rating Sheet. At the beginning of the page, the directions stated, For the last part

of the study, we ask you to consider the (tumor) problem above. Please provide a whole

number rating to each answer provided. Each answer corresponds to how valid you feel the

answer is to the problem above. Please rate from 0 (not valid) to 100 (most valid) in the

boxes provided. Kindly let the experimenter know when you are finished. Below the
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 10

instructions were three acceptable answers to the Tumor Problem (Figure 6). Next to each

answer was a box to provide the subjective validity rating.

Design

In our experiment, we manipulated two different independent variables. These included

the contextual relevance of the source problem (relevant vs non-relevant) and the use of imagery

paired with the source problem (image present vs no image). For our dependent variable, we

measured the participants subjective validity rating of three different provided answers to the

source problem (1 analogous solution, 2 distraction solutions).

The experiment followed a very simple outline. As it is for all problems in analogical

problem solving, the participant first receives the source problem, and then the participant

receives the target problem. Figure 7 shows the order in which the study was presented along

with the four experimental groups used. These groups included the Fortress Problem (non-

relevant context, no image), College Problem (relevant context, no image), Visual Fortress

Problem (non-relevant context, fortress image present), and Visual College Problem (relevant

context, college image present). Contextual relevance and imagery are our independent variables.

Contextual relevance refers to the two different types of source problems we used. Each

differed by how relevant the story was to our college participant sample. Gick and Holyoak

(1980) used the Fortress Problem (Figure 1) and we do the same. We consider this problem to be

a part of our non-relevant condition since it presents no relationship to the college students who

are to use it as an analogy. The problem proposes a situation where as a general is unable to take

over a fort due to a given constraint. The answer to this problem is that the fortress must be

attacked by converging on multiple roads. To make the context more relevant to our intended
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 11

participants, we created a new story that had almost complete resemblance to the Fortress

Problem. The problem has the same constraints and answer as the Fortress Problem, but is

related to the context of college, name the college relevant problem. The abstraction that one is

to represent from the Fortress problem is to be the same as the abstraction found in the College

Problem. In the college Problem, a certain restraint causes a student president and other

students to march on to campus using multiple roads. The differences in the problems almost

exclusively occur in the word usage. It is the semantic differences that we alter in the story, not

the actual structure or theme of the story. We find this difference to be essential. By changing the

inherent relevance of the words, we change the context of the story while upholding the integrity

of the required analogy. In these specific problems, the source problems are provided with

answer; the participants never had to provide their answers to the source problem.

By adding imagery to the source problem, we tested the effect of visual representations in

analogical problem solving. The imagery was made to fit the context of each problem. The

Fortress Problem was supplemented with an image that had the fortress, roads that converged

onto the fortress and surrounding buildings (Figure 3). The College-Relevant Problem was

supplemented with an image that had the college, the roads that converged onto the college, and

surrounding buildings (Figure 4). Both images had a key to ensure the participants could fully

comprehend the figures in each image. These images represent a top-down view of source

problems setting. We made the top-down view for the purposes of stressing the importance of

the roads which converge onto the central object (fortress or college). The idea of convergence

from different angles is essential to this case of analogical problem solving. This image is given

to provide basic framework of the problem, not to add more details, otherwise not given in the

problem.
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 12

Before handing the participants the target problem, we give them a distraction task guised

as a demographics worksheet. By asking the participants about 10 questions, we induce a

distraction. This ensures that the participants do not find an obvious reason to believe that the

two problems presented are related.

For our target problem, we use the Gick and Holyoak (1980) once more. We used the

tumor problem (Figure 5). The problem considers that a patient is in need of destroying a tumor

in his/her stomach. However, the ray needed to destroy the tumor is so powerful that it would

destroy healthy tissue. The problem asked how you how you may get around this constraint. Our

experiment provides three different solutions to this problem. One of these answers provides an

analogous solution to the problem. The analogous solution states, Apply low-intensity rays from

several different directions so they simultaneously converge at the tumor. This solution is

analogous because the solution of the source problem matches the solution to the target problem.

The army/student body cannot attack the fortress/college from one road just like the ray cannot

be directed at the tumor at one angle. In this way, the parallels between the source problem and

the target problem emerge. The Tumor Problem must be solved in the same way the source

problems are, by an attack from converging sides. We provided two other solutions from Gick

and Holyoak (1980). These were our distraction solutions. They provided valid answers to the

constraints of the problem but were not analogous to the source problem. One solution stated,

Send high-intensity rays down the esophagus so they strike the tumor. The other distraction

solution stated, Insert a tube through the healthy tissue to the tumor, and then send high-

intensity rays through the tube to the tumor.

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 13

The study asked the participants to rate the validity of each individual solution. The

subjective scale ranged from 0 (not valid) to 100 (most valid). The rating scale provided us with

the ability to understand the data in a different way, since it is not so much related to past studies.

The rating provides us the understanding if someone applies the analogy or not and tell us more

about the role of our independent variables. If having used a method of producing solutions or

using a yes/no method, our results would not have been as manageable. As you will later see, the

rating scale allows us to use different ways to analyze our results since we are able to observe the

results by validity, endorsement, and cognitive flexibility.

Design

The participants used the website, Doodle, to sign up for the participation of the study.

Each participant showed up at the experiment location at their designated time. The study took

place in a quiet room of the university library. The participants completed the study individually.

The experimenter chose a packet at random to administer to the participant. The

participant did not receive the whole packet at one time. Instead, the experimenter presented each

page of the packet at different times. First the participant received the informed consent form.

After signing the informed consent form, the participant returned the form to the experimenter.

The participant was then presented with either just the source problem or the source problem

with the related image. This was based on the participants experimental group assignment. The

participants were asked to read the instructions. This asked the participant to read the story and

view the related image. The participants notified the experimenter once they were done reading

the story and looking at the image and key (if provided). The experimenter then collected these

pages from the participant. The experimenter then provided the participant with the distraction
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 14

task/demographics worksheet. The participants recorded their answers and completed the

worksheet. After completion of the demographics worksheet, the experimenter provided the

participants with the tumor problem and the answer sheet. The participants were instructed to not

look the next page (the answer sheet) until done reading the problem presented. Using verbal

instruction, the experimenter recited to the participants, Please take your time to read the next

problem. Once you are done reading the problem, please flip to the next page and read/follow the

directions provided. You may reference the (tumor) problem again if need be. Once the

participants completed reading the problem, the participant turned to the next page and read the

instructions. After reviewing each of the provided answers, the participants rated their validity on

a scale of 0 to 100. The participant turned in the last two pages to the experimenter.

The participants were thanked for their participant and offered a cupcake as

compensation or their time. The experimenter then debriefed the participant by stating what the

study was about and what the goal of the study was. The study lasted approximately 10 minutes.

Results

Scoring

Our dependent variable was a validity rating score given to all three-possible given tumor

problem solutions. These scores ranged from 0 (not valid) to 100 (most valid). All rating scores

were accounted for and averaged across each experimental condition. We measured and

compared these means in three different ways. Our results include an analysis of analogous

validity, analogous endorsement, and cognitive flexibility. We define analogous validity to be the

mean rating the participants gave to the low-intensity answer. This only used the means of the

most analogous answer. Analogous endorsement is a comparison of the means for each answer
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 15

and thus utilized the validity scores from each answer. Given the participant rated the analogous

answer to be more valid than the other two answers, we term the participant to have endorsed

the solution. If a participant endorsed solution, we recorded the answer as a 1. If the

participants did not endorse the solution, we marked that participant with a 0. Cognitive

flexibility is regarded as the case in which a participant rates two or more answers to be valid. In

this study, we assume a valid score to be equal to or more than 70. The mean scores for each

answer were taken when reviewing cognitive flexibility. The participants who answered the

questions with cognitive flexibility were marked with a 2. The participants who rated only one

answer as valid was marked with 1. No participants were marked with a 0 since all

participants rated at least one answer as valid. We judged the significance threshold (p-value) to

be equal to or less than .2.

Analysis

Based on previous theories we expected that there should be a significant effect of image

presence and a significant effect of relevance on validity scores. We also anticipated that there

would be an interaction between the two in which college-relevance and image presence would

produce the highest ratings.

Our analysis is divided into three different approaches. First, we ran analysis on

agreement/belief of validity for the low intensity answer. Figure 8 shows the descriptive mean

comparison for relevance by image. Results show that there were higher ratings for the low-

intensity answer for the non-relevant (fortress) problem with an image and without an image

compared to the college-relevant problem. Participants also produced higher ratings on both

relevant and non-relevant problems when an image was present.

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 16

To examine the effects for analogous validity scores we ran a 2 (relevance) x 2 (image)

ANOVA on agreement/belief of validity for the Low Intensity Answer. There was a significant

main effect for image, F=1.877, p<.2. There was no significant main effect of relevance,

F=.106, p>.2. Additionally, there was no significant interaction of image and relevance, F=.138,

p>.2. To determine the main effect of image, an independent samples t-test investigating the

effect of presence an image on endorsement of low intensity solution. There was a significant

effect of an image being present on performance, p<.05.

Our results supported our predictions for the effect of imagery. We predicted that that

imagery added to the presentation of the source problem would result in increased validity scores

as compared to source problems that are presented without imagery. Imagery did cause a

significant increase in the validity rating scores. However, our findings did not support our

predictions for the effect of contextual relevance. We predicted that the relevant context of the

source problem would increase the validity ratings as compared to non-relevant condition. No

significant differences were present across either relevance condition.

Next, we examined participants analogous endorsement of the low intensity solution

compared to the distraction solutions. Figure 9 shows the descriptive mean comparison for

relevance by image for analogous endorsement. Results show that there was better performance

for rating of analogous validity of the low intensity answer with an image present for the college-

relevant problem. However, there was no change in scoring for the non-relevant (fortress)

problem when an image was present. Participants also performed better on the Non-college-

relevant fortress problem than the college-relevant problem when no image was present.

To examine the effect for analogous endorsement we ran a 2 (relevance) X 2 (image)

ANOVA on endorsement of low intensity rays over the other two options. There was a trending
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 17

significant effect of image, F=1.068, p=.310. There was no significant effect of relevance,

F=.119, p=.733. Additionally, there was a trending significant interaction of image and

relevance, F=1.068, p=.310. To determine the effect of image we then conducted an independent

sample t-test looking at the effect of the presence of image on endorsing the low intensity

solution over the other solutions. It shows that there is a slight trending significance for the

presence of image on analogous endorsement.

To explore the interaction between image and relevance on analogous endorsement, we

conducted two independent samples t-test of image presence. These data are organized by

relevance condition. For college relevance, the t-test shows a slight trending significance for the

presence of an image. For non-college relevance, the t-test shows no significance. Ultimately,

these results indicate that the presence of an image did nothing for participants abilities.

Next, we ran an analysis on participants cognitive flexibility endorsement of more than

one solutions validity greater than or equal to 70. Figure 10 shows the descriptive mean

comparison for relevance by image for cognitive flexibility scoring. For college-relevant

problems, results show greater cognitive flexibility in the absence of an image. Results also

indicate greater performance overall on cognitive flexibility for the non-college relevant problem

across image presence. For non-college relevant problems, participants had greater cognitive

flexibility scoring in the presence of an image compared to the absence of an image. These

findings suggest that participants show more cognitive flexibility in the non-relevance and image

absent domains.

To examine the effect for cognitive flexibility we ran a 2 (relevance) X 2 (image)

ANOVA. There was no significant main effect of image, F=.156, p=.696. However, there was a

significant effect of relevance, F=3.889, p<.2. Additionally, there was a significant interaction of
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 18

relevance by image, F=3.889, p<.2. We conducted an independent-sample t-test of relevance on

cognitive flexibility. Results show significant higher cognitive flexibility ratings for the non-

college relevant condition, p<.2, compared to the college relevant condition which showed no

significance.

Then, to explore the interaction we conducted a set of independent samples t-tests of

presence of images on cognitive flexibility (broken down by relevance). Results show a non-

significant effect of image in the non-college relevant domain. However, results also indicate a

significant effect of image in the college-relevant domain. The direction of the effect shows that

as the presence of an image goes from present to absent, flexibility scores show a significant

increase for the college-relevant domain.

Discussion

Our results supported our predictions for the effect of imagery. We predicted that that

imagery added to the presentation of the source problem would result in increased validity scores

as compared to source problems that are presented without imagery. Imagery did cause a

significant increase in the validity rating scores. However, our findings did not support our

predictions for the effect of contextual relevance. We predicted that the relevant context of the

source problem would increase the validity ratings as compared to non-relevant condition. No

significant differences were present across either relevance condition.

In addition to these results, we also saw in the case of analogy endorsement that an image

aided individuals who received a relevant story. However, the same did not occur for the

presence of non-relevant information. It appears that participants give greater endorsement of the

analogous solution when an image is present and when information is relevant. In contrast to

analogical problem solving we gained insight into cognitive flexibility. Participants were less
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 19

capable of creative thinking when more information was present. For both relevance groups,

cognitive flexibility ratings were higher without an image present.

Our results are evidence because it followed a pattern based on our research question

supported by previous research. Images aid in analogical problem solving and hinder creative

cognitive flexibility. When comparing to past studies we see a method very similar to Gick and

Holyoak (1980). Although, there was additional manipulations including the presence of an

image and relevance. With that our method also draws on Craik and Tulving (1975). Our

experiment took components of both studies to develop a greater understanding of the context of

analogical problem solving.

Gick and Holyoak (1980) conclude that analogies aid in problem solving. Being the

foundation of our study their theory is supported. Additionally, our study presents information

using an image to represent multiple modalities. Results showing that an image aids in

comprehension of knowledge and application of analogy support Clark and Paivios (1991) Dual

Coding Theory. Alternatively, we did not consistently see the effect of relevance in analogous

validity. Therefore, their theory of levels of processing is not fully supported as it applies to

analogical problem solving.

There are considerable limitations to our experiment that may have changed the outcome

or interpretation of our results. With an increase sample size of more than 32 participants we may

have seen the trending effect of analogous endorsement transition over into a main effect.

Additionally, our source problem manipulation was based in semantic relevance. This

manipulation limits the full scalability of relevance. Greater manipulation of the relevant source

problem may have produced a significant effect of the relevant condition across analogous

validity and endorsement. If participants were introduced a source problem that was contextual
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 20

manipulated to maximize relevance we might see an effect. As an extension to this study we seek

to continue research into how we as individuals maximize comprehension. Further research

would involve the identifying the threshold for comprehension in levels of processing.

Specifically, as it applies to the threshold of relevance that is needed to establish an analogy.

Ultimately, our study examines the effects of contextual relevance and imagery on

analogical problem solving. In studying these effects, we gain greater insight into what aids us in

our problem-solving capabilities. As we see imagery aid our analogical problem solving there are

implications in how we interact with everyday challenges especially in the learning environment.

Whether it be an academic setting or an everyday situation we see that images may help when

applying information from one source to a novel domain. As we continue to research analogical

problem solving and the modalities that can stand to affect them we may see additional aids in

our learning processes.

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 21

References

Clark, J. C. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology

Review. Vol. 3, No.3, 149-210

Craik, & Tulving (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Vol. 104, No. 3, 268-294.

Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12,

306-355.

Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978) Toward a model of text comprehension and production.

Psychological Review. 85, 363-394.

Sternberg, R. J. (1977) Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 84,

353-378.
ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 22

Figures

Figure 1. Non-relevant fortress source problem

Figure 2. College-relevant campus source problem

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 23

Figure 3. Non-relevant fortress source problem image

Figure 4. College-relevant campus source problem image

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 24

Figure 5. Tumor problem (target problem)

Figure 6. Target problem possible solutions

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 25

Figure 7. Study design order

Analogous Validity of Low Intensity Solution

90
80
70
Validity Score

60
50
40 Image
30 No Image
20
10
0
College Relevant Non-College Relevant
Source Problem

Figure 8. Analogous Validity of Low Intensity Solution Results

ANALOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 26

Analogous Endorsement of Low Intensity Solution

0.8
0.7
Endorsement Score

0.6
0.5
0.4
Image
0.3
No Image
0.2
0.1
0
College Relevant Non-College Relevant
Source Problem

Figure 9. Analogous Endorsement of Low Intensity Solution Results

Image and Relevance Effect on Cognitive Flexibility

1.8
1.6
1.4
Flexibility Score

1.2
1
0.8 Image
0.6 No Image
0.4
0.2
0
College Relevant Non-College Relevant
Source Problem

Figure 10. Image and Relevance Effect on Cognitive Flexibility Results