Adaptive reasoning: Componential and eye movement analysis of geometric analogy performance

The present study explored individual differences in performance of a geometric analogies task. Whereas past studies employed true/false or two-alternative items, the present research included four-alternative items and studied eye movements and confidence judgements for each item performance as well as latency and error. Item difficulty proved to be a function of an interaction between the number of response alternatives and the number of elements in items, especially for subjects lower in fluid-analytic reasoning ability. Results were interpreted using two hypothesized performance strategies: constructive matching and response elimination. The less efficient of these, response elimination, seemed to be used more by lower ability subjects on more difficult items. While two previous theories resemble one or the other of these strategies, neither alone seems to capture the complexity of adaptive problem solving. It appears that a comprehensive theory should incorporate strategy shifting as a function of item difficulty and subject ability. Componential models, based in part on past research, revealed that a justification component was activated and deactivated depending upon the nature of the analogy being solved. In addition, two new components, spatial inference and spatial application, were identified as important on some items, suggesting that different geometric analogy items invoke different cognitive processing components. Thus, a comprehensive theory should also describe component activation and deactivation.