Template
Compare two cases until their shared structure becomes explicit
Two stories become a tool when you can name what plays the same role in both.
When it fits
- You remember examples but fail to recognize the same underlying problem in a new setting.
When to avoid it
- A vivid resemblance can conceal a crucial difference. Comparing cases is not evidence that every detail transfers or that the proposed mechanism is correct.
A template to use
Case A roles and constraints: [case a]. Corresponding structure in case B: [case b]. Shared mechanism: [principle]. Important mismatch: [limit]. Prediction for a new case: [transfer].
Why it matters
Place two cases side by side and map their goals, constraints and relationships. Describe the common mechanism without relying on surface names. Then test that abstraction on a third case. This analogical encoding method has supportive evidence in novice negotiation learning; transfer elsewhere still needs checking.
An example
A delivery agreement and a support arrangement both exchange flexible timing for a more predictable workload. The shared trade matters more than their different labels.
Check your result
The learner uses the structural relation on a fresh case and identifies when the analogy breaks.
Keep this limit in mind
- A vivid resemblance can conceal a crucial difference. Comparing cases is not evidence that every detail transfers or that the proposed mechanism is correct.
Connected ideas
Useful withTrade across different priorities instead of halving every differenceUseful with
Practice recovering from mistakes where mistakes are safe
Evidence and sources
In the cited negotiation studies, comparing cases to abstract a shared schema improved learning and transfer relative to studying the cases separately.
Benefits in novice negotiation tasks do not establish identical effects for every subject or every pair of examples.
Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding · Abstract