Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

Retrieval of an appropriate analogy ftora memory is often difficult because the structure common to two analogous domains is embedded in specific contexts that differ at the surface level. The present study examines an aspect of domain representations that may affect the access of analogs in memory. Subjects were asked to identify analogies between new and previously learned passages. Passages varied in the manner in which analogous relations were described. In all passages the relations were embedded in a particular context that was dissimilar at the surface level between analogs. However, the expression of relations within a passage varied in level of abstraction. In "abstract" passages relations were lexicalized with relatively abstract terms and were described with litde domain specific detail. In "specific" passages more specific terms were used and extensive domain specific detail was given about how relations were instantiated within the domain. In "mixed" passages both abstract and specific descriptions of relations were given. Subjects reading abstract passages were best at identifying analogies. The present results suggest that even though analogous relations are embedded in dissimilar contexts, the way in which those relations themselves are represented can affect analogical access. Subjeas are relatively successfiil at analogical access when the relations are represented in a relatively general and sparse form.