Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to specify individual differences in analogical reasoning and to examine whether subjects were consistent or not in their analogical reasoning strategies across cue conditions. Subjects were thirty-two undergraduate and graduate students in each experiment. To evaluate subjects' strategies twelve process models were constructed and the preferred model of each subject for each reasoning problem was determined by multiple regression analysis. Twelve models were different from each other in the manner of encoding, the presence or absence of mapping, and the manner of attribute comparison. Subjects' performance was measured in terms of latencies to solve analogies correctly. In Experiment I, subjects were asked to solve analogies of geometric figure and schematic-picture. In Experiment II, subjects were asked to solve analogies schematic-picture under 0-cue and 2-cue conditions. Almost all subjects used different strategies to solve different analogies. Individual and stimulus differences were large in the manner of encoding and little in the manner of attribute comparison. Many subjects were not consistent in their analogical reasoning strategies across cue conditions.
