Development of Analogical Problem-Solving Skill Author(s): Keith J. Holyoak, Ellen N. Junn and Dorrit O. Billman Reviewed work(s): Source: Child Development, Vol. 55, No. 6 (Dec., 1984), pp. 2042-2055 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1129778 . Accessed: 30/11/2012 13:48 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Child Development. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.217 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:48:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Development of Analogical Problem-Solving Skill Keith J. Holyoak Universityof Michigan Ellen N. Junn Princeton Unive-sity Dorrit O. Billman Universityof Pennsylvania HOLYOAK,KEITH J.; JUNN, ELLEN N.; and BILLMAN, DOR•gT O. Development of Analogical Problem- Solving Skill. CHILD DEVELOPMENT,1984, 55, 2042-2055. 3 experiments were performed to assess children'sability to solve a problem by analogyto a superficiallydissimilar situation. Preschoolers and fifth and sixth graderswere asked to solve a problem that allowed multiple solutions. Some subjects were first read a story that included an analogous problem and its solution. When the mapping between the relationsinvolved in the correspondingsolutions was relatively simple, and the correspondinginstruments were perceptuallyand functionallysimilar, even preschoolerswere able to use the analogy to derive a solution to the transferproblem (Experiment1). Furthermore, salient similarityof the instrumentswas neither sufficient (Experiment2) nor necessary (Experi- ment 3) for success by preschool subjects. When the story analog mapped well onto the transfer problem,4-year-olds were often able to generatea solutionthat required transformation of an object with little perceptualor semantic similarityto the instrumentused in the base analog (Experiment 3). The older children used analogies in a mannerqualitatively similar to that observed in compara- ble studies with adults (Experiment 1), whereas the younger children exhibited different limita- tions. Analogical thinking is widely recognized metaphor is based on salient perceptual as a hallmark of human intelligence, and as similarities (Vosniadou & Ortony, 1983). such the course of its development is a topic of clear importance. The developmental litera- However, some sensitivity to analogical ture in this area has almost exclusively con- relations is apparently within the competence cerned itself with "analogy problems" of the of very young children. The essence of sort used in intelligence tests, most commonly analogical thinking is the transfer of knowl- "proportional" analogies of the form A:B::C:? edge from one situation to another by a pro- (for a brief review, see Sternberg, 1982). The cess of mapping-finding a partial set of corre- consensus of most of this research is that chil- spondences between the elements (objects, dren have great difficulty solving even simple attributes and relations) that form the mental analogy problems prior to at least age 9 representations of the two situations (Hesse, (Levinson & Carpenter, 1974; Lunzer, 1965; 1966). Mapping processes seem to underlie Piaget, Montangero, & Billeter, 1977; Stern- both social modeling (Holyoak & Gordon, berg & Rifkin, 1979). Experimental studies of 1984) and "make-believe" play, which are the development of metaphorical comprehen- clearly exhibited by 3-year-olds (Garvey, sion indicate that performance is generally 1977). For example, when a girl pretends to poor prior to middle childhood (Winner, be the mother of her doll, she modulates her Rosenstiel, & Gardner, 1976), unless the behavior to bring it into correspondence with This research was supported by NIMH Research Scientist Development Award 1-K02- MH00342-03and NSF grantBNS-8216068, both to K. J. Holyoak.Mary Gick providedboth valuable advice on the experimentaldesign and comments on an earlierdraft. Robert Sternberg and several anonymousreferees also providedhelpful comments.Tsila Evers assisted in testing subjects.We are gratefulfor the cooperationof the students and teachers of Ann ArborAction Child Care, Jackand Jill LearningCenter, Little Lamb Nursery,Perry Nursery School, Pound House Child Care Center (all in Ann Arbor, Michigan), Maplewood Elementary School of Jenison, Michigan, and Chapin School of Princeton, New Jersey. Reprint requests should be sent to K. J. Holyoak, University of Michigan,Human PerformanceCenter, 330 PackardRoad, Ann Arbor,Michigan 48104. Inc. [ChildDevelopment, 1984, 55, 2042-2055. ? 1984by the Societyfor Researchin Child Development, All rightsreserved. 0009-3920/84/5506-0014$01.00] This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.217 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:48:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Holyoak, Junn, and Billman 2043 that of an appropriateadult, while makingthe to investigate the development of analogical doll "behave" like an infant. Gentner (1977) problem-solving skill. Our aims in the three demonstratedthat 4-year-olds could respond experiments reported below were twofold. appropriatelywhen they were shown a pic- First, we wished to determine at what age ture of a mountain and asked such questions children are first able to apply simple as, "If the mountainhad a knee, where would analogies to performa goal-directedproblem- it be?" (i.e., the children preserved relative solving task. The earlier the age of success, spatial positions when mapping human body the more likely it is that analogy provides a parts onto the picture). Gentner's task seems potential mechanism for early cognitive de- very similarto pretend play. Youngchildren's velopment. Second, we sought to answer success in her study may reflect the simplicity more analyticquestions concerningthe condi- of the higher-order relation between the tions under which young children succeed or mapped relations, which was typically iden- fail in using analogies and the components of tity on such perceptual dimensions as relative analogyuse that pose particulardifficulty. The height. latteraspect of the study was guided by Holy- oak's (1984) analysis of the components re- thinking re- Understanding analogical quired to solve a problem by analogy. These quires more naturalistic experimental para- are mental of than the format that has (1) constructing representations digms proportional a known analog (the base) and of the novel typically been employed. While a great deal of work has been done on the of anal- analogous problem (the target), (2) noticing solving the potential analogy between the base and ogy problems, relatively little has been done an initial in target, (3) constructing partial map- on the use of analogy solving problems, by between the elements of the base and or in life a ping children adults. Yet everyday pri- the and the to function of is not to target, (4) extending mapping mary analogical thinking constructa solution procedureappropriate for "solve (unless one is taking an in- analogies" the target problem. telligence test) but ratherto help solve novel problems by relating them to known situa- tions, which may sometimes be drawn from Experiment 1 differentsemantic domains.Analogies in very was to assess the science the analogy between the motion Experiment 1 designed (e.g., abilities of children at two different levels of billiard balls and of gas particles) involve age the use of one situation as a frameworkfor to use analogies to solve problems. of constructinga causal model another (Op- Method penheimer, 1956). Transfer problem.-The transfer prob- Recent studies have begun to investigate lem used in this study, the "ball problem," the processes by which adults solve problems was adapted from the "pea problem" dis- by analogy. A paradigmthat has been used to cussed by Raaheim (1974). Two bowls were study analogical problem solving by college set on a table, one within the child's reach and students involves having subjects solve a one fartheraway. One bowl contained a num- problem after reading a story describing an ber of small gumballs, and the other was analogous problem and its solution (Gick & empty. Also on the table were an aluminum Holyoak, 1980, 1983). For example, Gick and walking cane, a large rectangular sheet of Holyoak (1980) had subjects attempt to solve heavy paper (posterboard), a hollow card- Duncker's (1945) "radiation problem" after board tube long enough to reach the farther reading about an analogous militaryproblem. bowl, child-safe scissors, string, tape, paper The radiationproblem allows a variety of po- clips, and rubber bands. The subjects' task tential solution plans. By varyingthe solution was to devise as many ways as possible, using to the militaryproblem provided in the story the materials provided, of transferring the analog, Gick and Holyoak were able selec- balls from the filled to the empty bowl with- tively to facilitatediscovery of particularsolu- out leaving their seat.