Redescription disembeds relations: Evidence from relational transfer and use in problem solving

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 1082-1093

  Dixon, James A ^a   Dohn, Matthew C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HYPOTHESIS; INFORMATION; LEARNING; MEMORY; PROBLEM SOLVING; REDESCRIPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; THINKING; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 0344235460     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196129     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. ALIBALI, M. W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35, 127-145.
2. BERNARDO, A. B. I. (2001). Principle explanation and strategic schema abstraction in problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 29, 627-633.
3. BLESSING, S. B., & ANDERSON, J. R. (1996). How people learn to skip steps, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 576-598.
4. CHI, M. T. H., FELTOVICH, P. J., & GLASER, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
5. DIXON, J. A., & BANGERT, A. S. (2002). The pre-history of discovery: Precursors of representational change in solving gear-system problems. Developmental Psychology, 38, 918-933.
6. DIXON, J. A., & BANGERT, A. S. (2003). On the spontaneous discovery of a mathematical relation during problem solving. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7. GENTNER, D., & GUNN, V. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory & Cognition, 29, 565-577.
8. GENTNER, D., & MARKMAN, A. B. (1994). Structure alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152-158.
9. GENTNER, D., & MARKMAN, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
10. HINTZMAN, D. L. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trac, memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-428.
11. KAPLAN, C. A., & SIMON, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 374-419.
12. KARMILOFF-SMITH, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmenta perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. KOTOVSKY, L., & GENTNER, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67 2797-2822.
14. LANGSTON, W., KRAMER, D. C., & GLENBERG, A. M. (1998). The rep resentation of space in mental models derived from text. Memory & Cognition, 26, 247-262.
15. LEMAIRE, P., & REDER, L. (1999). What affects strategy selection in arithmetic? The example of parity and five effects on product verification. Memory & Cognition, 27, 364-382.
16. LEMAIRE, P., & SIEGLER, R. S. (1995). Four aspects of strategic change Contributions to children's learning of multiplication, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 83-97.
17. LOEWENSTEIN, J., & GENTNER, D. (2001). Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. Journal of cognition & Development, 2, 189-219.
18. MARKMAN, A. B., & GENTNER, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431-467.
19. MARKMAN, A. B., & GENTNER, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24, 235-249.
20. NAMY, L. L., & GENTNER, D. (2002). Making a silk purse out of two sow's ears: Young children's use of comparison in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 5-15.
21. Ross, B. H., & KILBANE, M. C. (1997). Effects of principle explanation and superficial similarity on analogical mapping in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 427-440.
22. Ross, B. H., & WARREN, J. L. (2002). Learning abstract relations from using categories. Memory & Cognition, 30, 657-665.
23. SCHWARTZ, D. L., & BLACK, J. B. (1996a). Analog imagery in mental model reasoning: Depictive models. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 154-219.
24. SCHWARTZ, D. L., & BLACK, J. B. (1996b). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20, 457-497.
25. SIEGLER, R. S., & JENKINS, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. SIEGLER, R. S., & SHIPLEY, C. (1995). Variation, selection, and cognitive change. In T. Simon & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 31-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. WICKENS, T. D. (1989). Multiway contingency tables for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. WILEY, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 26, 716-730.