Speaking in Neuchâtel: does an analogy help an audience apply an idea?
In a technical presentation, comparing a new process with a familiar system seems to make explanation easier. The managerial question is more precise: does this analogy enable the audience to apply the principle to another case once the presentation is over?
What the literature establishes
Mary L. Gick and Keith J. Holyoak (1980, Cognitive Psychology) studied how a solution encountered in one problem could be transferred to another problem with an analogous structure. Their experiments show that having access to a relevant example does not guarantee its spontaneous use; a prompt to make the connection can facilitate transfer. For a speaker, this suggests that presenting a comparison is not the same as helping an audience identify the useful relationship.
The mechanism: comparing to uncover a structure
Mary L. Gick and Keith J. Holyoak (1983, Cognitive Psychology) examined how comparing analogous examples could support the formation of a shared schema and its transfer. The issue is not simply recognising visible similarities, but identifying the pattern of relationships that makes a solution relevant. One possible implication for public speaking is to explain what corresponds across cases, rather than leaving the audience to reconstruct the connection unaided.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that including an analogy automatically improves a presentation. These studies do not support that conclusion: they concern the conditions for transfer, not the general superiority of figurative language. A useful comparison must preserve the relevant relationship; it is not evidence that the systems being compared behave identically. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence does not guarantee
These experiments involve laboratory problem-solving tasks, not industrial presentations to decision-making committees. They therefore do not demonstrate that an analogy improves the quality of a technical or commercial decision in Neuchâtel. In practice, asking whether an explanation was clear does not establish whether the audience can reuse the principle either.
A practical check in Neuchâtel
Within SHR’s “Public Speaking & impact” programme, an exercise could start with a presentation on controlling thermal drift, using cases from Neuchâtel’s microtechnology, watchmaking and precision microelectronics sectors. Randomly assign participants to a version using an analogy alone or an equally long version that also explains its correspondences and limits, then give them a new case without reminding them of the analogy. Measure the proportion of responses that correctly identify the applicable principle and one limit to its transfer, using a rubric established before the exercise and assessed without knowing which version participants received. The observed difference provides a local indicator of transfer, not proof that one speaking style is universally superior. To go further: explore the Public Speaking & Impact training in Neuchâtel in the canton of Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Public Speaking & Impact in Neuchâtel
- public speaking & impact
- Neuchâtel
- research
- training neuchâtel