Chapter 12- Problem solving and creativity Flashcards
Problem
Occurs when there is an obstacle between a present state and a goal , and it’s not immediately obvious how to get around the obstacle
Gestalt psychologists were concerned with
How people represent a problem in their mind and how solving a problem involves a reorganization or restructuring of the problem’s representation
Gestalt psychologists believe that finding a solution to a problem depends on
How the problem is represented in the mind.
Restructuring
What Gestalt psychologists call the process of changing an object’s representation. The circle problem is one example of restructuring- we can solve the problem when we realize the triangle in the circle can be made into a rectangle with 2 diagonals
Insight
Defined as any problem solution that involves a reorganization of a person’s mental representation of a stimulus or situation to create a representation that wasn’t obvious initially. Restructuring is often the outcome of insight.
Metcalfe insight experiment
Researchers hypothesized that participants working on an insight problem should not be good at predicting how close they are to the solution. Non-insight problems require a methodical solution, and participants should have an idea of how close they are to finishing. As they were working on the problems, participants were asked to make “warmth” judgements to indicate how close they were to finding a solution. For non-insight problems, ratings increased gradually until the problem was solved. For insight problems, ratings stayed mostly the same until just before the problem was solved, when ratings jumped. This supports the idea that the solutions to insight problems occur suddenly.
Analytically based problems
Also called non-insight problems. They are solved by a systematic analysis process, often using past experience.
Fixation
People’s tendency to focus on a specific characteristic of the problem that keeps them from arriving at a solution. According to Gestalt psychologists, this is a major obstacle to solving problems
Functional fixedness
Focusing on familiar functions or uses of an object. The candle problem is an example. Participants presented with the materials in the box found the problem more difficult than those presented with the materials separately from the box. When the box was seen as a container, it was difficult to solve the problem because the participants didn’t consider that the box could have another function (as a shelf in this case)
Two string problem (Maier)
Participants were asked to tie together 2 strings hanging from the ceiling. Solving the problem required using pliers to move the strings, since they were too far apart for one person to reach both. This was difficult to solve because pliers are usually thought of as tools, not weights. This is another example of functional fixedness
Mental set
A preconceived notion about how to approach a problem, determined by people’s knowledge about what has worked in the past. A mental set includes the preconceptions about the use of objects or preconceptions about how to solve a problem, which influences problem solving. Includes functional fixedness
Luchins water jug problem
Participants were asked to figure out on paper how they would obtain a certain volume of water using 3 empty jars. There was a mental set group that was given a demonstration for one problem, and a no mental set group, that just solved the next problem. All of the participants in the no mental set group used simpler solutions, which was much more than those in the mental set group. Mental set can influence problem solving due to preconceptions about how to solve a problem. Example of Gestalt problem solving in humans
Newell and Simon saw problems in terms of
Initial state (conditions at the beginning of the problem), intermediate state, and goal state (the solution of the problem). All 3 states together make up the problem space.
Tower of Hanoi problem (Newell and Simon)
Participants were asked to transfer discs on one peg to another peg, and there were various rules for things that were not allowed. Newell and Simon viewed problem solving as a series of steps, with each action creating an intermediate state. Their approach to problem solving provided a way to specify pathways from initial to goal states
Operators (Newell and Simon)
Actions that take the problem from one state to another. There might be rules governing the operator, or factors that restrict what actions you can take to solve the problem.
Means-end analysis
Proposed by Newell and Simon as a way to direct the search to use a strategy. The goal is to reduce the difference between the initial and goal states, which is done by creating subgoals. This strategy could be used to solve the tower of Hanoi problem
Subgoals
Intermediate states that are closer to the goal. A subgoal may actually appear to move away from the goal, but it helps to solve the problem eventually
Mutilated checkerboard problem
If we eliminate two corners of the checkerboard, can we cover the remaining squares with 31 dominos? Researchers hypothesized that versions of the checkerboard problem that were more likely to cause participants to recognize the correct representation of the problem would be easier to solve. Boards that emphasized the difference between adjoining squares did make the problem easier to solve because participants were more aware of necessary principles. This shows that solving a problem is easier when information is provided that points people toward the correct representation of the problem
Think-aloud protocol
Participants are asked to say out loud what they are thinking while solving a problem. The goal is to determine which information the person is attending to while they’re solving the problem. This protocol also reveals when participants experience a shift in how they perceive the problem (similar to the Gestalt idea of restructuring).
Analogical transfer
The process of noticing connections between similar problems and applying the solution for one problem to other problems
Analogical problem solving
Using an analogy- the solution to a similar problem to guide a solution to a new problem. Example- using the Russian marriage problem to solve the checkerboard problem
Target problem
In analogical transfer, the problem that the participant is trying to solve.
Source problem
In analogical transfer, the other problem that is similar to the target problem and therefore illustrates a way to solve it. The Russian marriage problem is the source problem in the checkerboard example
Radiation problem (Duncker)
Participants are asked to figure out how to use radiation to kill a tumor. At high intensities the radiation will kill healthy tissue, at low intensities the radiation will not harm the tumor. Solution- expose the tumor to many low intensity rays from multiple directions, which is the technique used in modern radiosurgery. This fits the Gestalt idea of restructuring.
Gick and Holyoak’s radiation problem analogy
Gick and Holyoak presented participants with a story about soldiers, where the solution was analogous to the solution of the radiation problem. After reading the story, the number of participants who could solve the radiation problem increased, but there were still 70% of participants who couldn’t solve it. When participants were asked to think about the story, their success rate doubled. This suggests that the information needed to recognize the analogy was present in people’s memories but hadn’t been retrieved. Participants do not seem to spontaneously transfer their knowledge of the base passage and require a hint about the bases relevance
3 steps of analogical problem solving (Gick and Holyoak)
- Noticing that there is an analogous relationship between the source problem and the target problem- this step is difficult
- Mapping the correspondence between the 2 problems. Participants have to connect parts of the source problem to elements of the target problem
- Applying the mapping to generate a parallel solution to the target problem
Analogical encoding
The process by which two problems are compared and similarities between them are determined. Participants can discover similar problem features if they’re asked to compare two cases that illustrate a principle
Trade-off strategy
A negotiating strategy where one person says to another person, “I’ll give you A if you give me B”. Used in Gentner and Goldin’s experiment
Contingency strategy
Refers to a negotiating strategy in which a person gets what they want if something else happens. Ex- an author can get a certain percentage of royalties from their book, but only if sales are high. Used in Gentner and Goldin’s experiment
Gentner and Goldin’s analogical encoding experiment- methods
Participants were familiarized with contingency and trade-off negotiating strategies, then were given 2 sample cases describing trade-off solutions. They were asked to compare the cases to come up with a successful negotiation. Another group did the same thing with contingency strategy examples. The groups were then given a new test problem that could be solved with either strategy.
Gentner and Goldin’s analogical encoding experiment- results
With the next text problem, participants tended to use the strategy that had been emphasized in the first problems. This suggests that having people compare source stories is an effective way to allow analogical encoding because it forces them to pay attention to problem features that enhance their ability to solve other problems.
Analogical paradox
It’s difficult to apply analogies in laboratory research, but people routinely use analogies in real world settings. Analogies play an important role in solving scientific problems and designing new products
In vivo problem-solving research
Dunbar- involves observing people to determine how they solve problems in real-world situations. This approach is advantageous because it captures thinking in natural settings, but it is time consuming and difficult to isolate and control specific variables.
Experts
People who, by devoting a large amount of time to learning about a field and practicing and applying that learning, are very knowledgeable or skilled in a certain field. Experts in a field usually solve problems faster and at a higher success rate than novices. Experts also spend more time analyzing a problem, but this is a more efficient way of solving a problem
3 reasons for the differences in how experts and novices solve problems
- Experts possess more knowledge about their fields
- Experts’ knowledge is organized differently than novices’
- Experts spend more time analyzing problems
Chase and Simon expert problem solving experiment
Used chess experts with greater than 10,000 hours of experience and novices. Participants were asked to reproduce the positions of pieces on a chessboard after viewing it for 5 seconds. Experts excelled at this task when the chess pieces were arranged in actual game positions, but the advantage vanished when the pieces were arranged randomly. This is because experts saw the game positions in chunks of 4-6 pieces stored in their LTM, but this pattern was destroyed when pieces were randomly arranged. This demonstrates how the knowledge of experts is arranged differently, into chunks
How is experts’ knowledge organized differently than novices’?
Experts see problems differently than novices because they focus on different characteristics of problems. Novices tend to focus on surface level attributes such as the objects involved in a problem, while experts focus on the underlying principles involved in solving the problem. Knowledge of the underlying principles results in more effective problem solving. Experts also chunk information differently to make it more meaningful, and they use subgoals
What are the disadvantages of being an expert?
Knowing all of the facts and established theories of a field can make experts less open to new ways of looking at problems. This is one reason why less experienced scientists in a field are often responsible for revolutionary discoveries. Also, experts only have an advantage in their area of expertise due to their extensive knowledge in the area. They will not experience an advantage in other fields. Experts tend to underestimate the difficulty of problems and have poor memory for the details of a problem due to automaticity.
Divergent thinking
Thinking that is open ended and involves a large number of potential solutions. This is part of creativity, but not necessary for creative thinking. Other researchers have proposed that in additional to being original, a creative response must be useful. Creativity reflects the ability to create more
Practical creativity
Many inventions were created using analogical problem solving, where observing a phenomenon has led to a new and useful solution to a practical problem. There is usually a period of trial and error to create a useful device from an idea.
Problem solving process
Researchers have proposed that creative problem solving involves a process. There are 2 steps- generating ideas (problem finding) and evaluating the idea (evaluation and selection).
Group brainstorming
The purpose of this technique is to encourage people to express ideas that might be useful in solving a problem. Participants are instructed to say whatever ideas come to mind without criticizing them. This encourages people to think outside the box, but is not very effective in practice. Some people might dominate the conversation, and people won’t share ideas for fear of being judged.
Smith preconception experiment
Participants were asked to invent/sketch new and creative toys. The group that was shown examples beforehand generated ideas that were more similar to the examples. This shows how preconceptions can limit creativity
Creative cognition (Finke)
An individual brainstorming task to encourage people to think creatively. Participants were asked to create an object. They were then given the name of an object category and were told to interpret their object as a member of that category. The inventions were called preinventive forms, because they came before the finished product. Finke demonstrated that you didn’t need to be an inventor to be creative, and that many processes that occur during creative problem solving are similar to other cognitive processes
Nine-dot problem
Involves 9 dots grouped in a square. Participants are asked to use 4 lines to connect all 9 dots without lifting their pen from the paper. This is very difficult to solve because people don’t consider that they are able to extend lines outside of the square- we tend to perceive individual elements as being grouped together. The left anterior temporal lobe is associated with grouping information into meaningful patterns
Transcranial direct current stimulation
Uses two electrodes, one that decreases the excitability of neurons and one that increases the excitability. When an area of their ATL was deactivated, more participants were able to solve the nine-dot problem. This suggests that deactivating an area of the brain allows us to think outside the box.
Kounios problem solving process experiment
Used EEG that was measured for 2 seconds, followed by a presentation of a compound remote-associate problem. 3 words are presented and the task is to use 2 of the words to create a new word. After participants solved the problem, they indicated whether their solution was insight or non-insight. It was found that EEG activity increased in the frontal lobe before insight solutions and increased in the occipital lobe before noninsight solutions. The status of your brain before you begin a problem could influence the approach you take to solving it.
Default mode network
DMN activity increases when attention isn’t focused on a task, and DMN activity is associated with mind wandering. Mind wandering is involved in thinking about and planning for the future
Incubation
The phenomenon of getting ideas after taking a time out from problem solving
Alternate uses task (Baird)
Participants had 2 minutes to think of unusual uses for common objects
Baird DMN experiment
Used a baseline alternate uses task, followed by a 12 minute incubation period. During this time, participants did a hard task (low rate of mind wandering) or an easy task (high rate of mind wandering). When the AUT was repeated, the performance of participants in the easy task group increased by 40%. In the hard task group, performance was unchanged. This suggests that mind wandering facilitates creative incubation
Is there a connection between DMN activity and creativity?
Participants were asked to propose unusual uses for objects. The more unusual the use, the higher the originality. The participants received fMRI scans, and it was found that higher originality ratings were associated with higher activity of the structures in the DMN.
Executive control network
Involved in directing attention as a person is carrying out tasks. It plays a role in creativity.
ECN experiment
Participants were asked to design book covers while in an fMRI. They were asked to first generate ideas, then evaluate the designs they created- this process occurs during creativity, and the activity of the ECN and DMN also increased during this process. This suggests that the DMN and ECN work together during creative thinking.
Why are the DMN and ECN typically thought to oppose each other?
The DMN is more active during mind wandering, while the ECN is more active during tasks that require attention. One region being active generally inactivates the other region. It is unclear how the two regions can work together to influence creativity. It could be because mind wandering is spontaneous, and the ECN is necessary to act as a traffic cop and guide thinking in an original direction. Increased connectivity between the two regions can result in increased creativity.
Daydreaming
Another name for mind wandering, can enhance creativity. Activities to foster daydreaming include taking a break, taking a shower, taking a walk, and paying attention to your mind wanderings.
Volitional daydreaming
Choosing to disengage from external tasks in order to pursue an internal stream of thought.
Mindfulness
The process of actively noticing new things, or paying attention on purpose to the present moment.
Well defined problems
Have a clear goal. They usually have a correct answer, and certain procedures (when applied correctly) will lead to a solution. Includes math problems
Ill defined problems
Do not necessarily have one “correct” answer, or a clear path to their “solution.” Example- “Which puppy should I choose? or “How to be successful in life?”
Problem solving in animals
Chimpanzees demonstrate an ability for insight problem solving (Kohler’s insight learning). Crows can also solve problems through insight problem solving
Negative set
Bias or tendency to solve problems in one particular way. Past experiences or previous learning can be strong enough to bias later solution attempts and prevent us from seeing all the possibilities. Luchin’s water jug experiment is an example- most participants that were shown an example failed to notice the simpler solution
In Gestalt psychology, what are 2 major barriers to problem solving?
- Functional fixedness
- Negative set
Criticisms of the Gestalt approach (2)
- Somewhat limited in its applicability- really only concerned with “Insight problems”. Yet many problems do not involve an ‘insight’ to solve, but rather implementing a series of known operations
- Leaves out consideration of the processes that lead to restructuring. What happens in between initial representation and restructured representation?
The modern approach to problem solving
Due to the limitations of the Gestalt approach, there is now a more modern approach to problem solving. Takes a more information processing view of problem solving. It focuses on a more detailed understanding of how people solve problems, asking what processes and strategies people use during problem solving. Extends beyond how people solve insight problems to also focus on other types of problems. This includes Newell and Simon’s work with the “problem space”.
Criticisms of the modern approach (3)
- Not applicable to problems for which there are no clear solutions, such as ill-defined problems
- Does not apply to insight problems
- Has trouble explaining how the way in which a problem is stated influences problem solving
Plan
Newell and Simon- a hierarchical process that controls the order in which a sequence of operations is to be performed
Problem space
The domain of the problem and the choices the solver evaluates during solution
Surface features
In analogical reasoning, superficial details, such as the actual story elements. People tend to focus on superficial aspects of a problem, which is why spontaneous or uninstructed use of analogies is rare.
Underlying (deep) structure
In analogical reasoning, General and Fortress and the Tumor Problem have the same underlying structure. Important elements in one story are isomorphic to elements in
the other story
How to increase analogy use
- Focus on the deep structure of a problem, not surface level similarities
- Encourage analogical encoding
How improve problem solving
Increasing domain knowledge- limited knowledge or familiarity leads to inefficiency in problem solving. This encourages analogical problem solving and divergent thinking
Expert vs novice differences in analysis of problems (3)
- Novices more likely to plunge right in and try solutions
- Experts spend more time qualitatively analyzing the structure of
the problem - Experts are also more likely to check for errors in their thinking
What makes an expert?
Common estimates = 10 years of intensive practice in a domain. Experts have different types of knowledge and automatize simple tasks to place less demands on working memory. Whether a person is an expert vs a novice is unrelated to their intelligence
Convergent thinking
Thinking that
works toward finding a solution to a
specific problem that usually has a
correct answer.
Remote associates task (Mednick)
Participants were provided with lists of 3 words and asked to come up with a 4th related word. Tested the ability to connect distinct ideas and make new connections between existing ideas
Divergent thinking experiment (Guildford)
Participants were asked questions to promote divergent thinking, like how many different uses you can think of for a brick. Tests ability to take an idea in a new, unprecedented direction
Jansson creativity experiment
Asked engineering students to design an inexpensive, spill-proof coffee cup that
does not include a mouth piece or straw. The control group did not receive a sample design. The fixation group was presented with a sample design that included what not to do. The fixation group produced ideas that were more similar to the sample, suggesting that design fixation limits ability to engage in divergent thinking
