Cognitve Psychology Chapter 12

Front 1

problem

Back 1

occurs when there is an obstacle between a present state and a goal and it is not immediately obvious how to get around the obstacle

Front 2

well-defined problems

Back 2

usually have a correct answer, and certain procedures that will lead to a solution

Front 3

ill-defined problem

Back 3

occur frequently in everyday life, do not necessarily have a correct answer, and the path to their solution is unclear

Front 4

problem solving for Gesalt psychologists was about...

Back 4

(1) how ppl represent a problem in their mind
(2) how solving a problem involves a reorganization or restructuring of this representation

Front 5

restructuring

Back 5

the process of changing the problem's representation

Front 6

insight

Back 6

the sudden realization of a problem's solution

Front 7

experiment designed to distinguish between insight problems and non-insight problems

Back 7

procedure: gave participants insight problems (link chains) and non-insight problems (algebra) and asked them to make "warmth" (1-far, 7-close) judgements every 15s as they were working on the problem

Hint 7

results: for insight problems warmth remained low until just before the problem is solved, while with on-insight problems warmth gradually increased

Front 8

what is the key difference between insight and non-insight problems?

Back 8

with insight problems ppl should not be good at predicting how near they are to the solution, while the opposite is true for non-insight problems

Front 9

fixation

Back 9

ppl's tendency to focus on a specific characteristic of the problem that keeps them from arriving at a solution (one of the major obstacles to problem solving)

Hint 9

(e.g) focusing on the familiar uses of an object
(i.e.) the candle problem. two-string problem

Front 10

functional fixedness

Back 10

restricting the use of an object to its familiar functions

Front 11

the candle problem

Back 11

procedure: gave participants a cork board, some candles, a matchbox with or without matches, and tacks. The task was to mount candle on wall without dripping wax on the floor

Hint 11

results: the group that had been presented the box with matches found the problem more difficult than without matches (twice as likely to solve problem)

Front 12

two-string problem

Back 12

procedure: participants task was to tie together two strings hanging from the ceiling, but this was difficult because they were separated. To solve they needed to tie one string to pliers so they could swing it and get both strings within reach

Hint 12

results: 60% did not solve problem, when experimenter set sting swinging by accidentally bumping into it 23 to 37% who hadn't solved it figured it out in 60 s

Front 13

mental set

Back 13

a preconceived notion about how to approach a problem, which is determined by a person's experience or what has worked in the past

Front 14

water-jug problem

Back 14

participants given 3 jugs of diff capacities and are required to use these jugs to measure out a specific quantity of water
Procedure: had one group do a set of 8 problems, the last two could be solved in a quicker way
the other group only did the last 2 problems

Hint 14

results: the mental set group used the shorter solution significantly less than the no mental set group

Front 15

Newell and Simon's approach to problem solving

Back 15

problem solving as a search process where instead of just considering the initial structure and the new structure, a search occurs between the posing of the problem and its solution

Front 16

initial state

Back 16

conditions at the beginning of the problem

Front 17

goal state

Back 17

the solution of the problem

Front 18

tower of Hanoi problem

Back 18

move discs

Front 19

operators

Back 19

actions that take the problem from one state to another

Front 20

intermediate state

Back 20

each step creates these states in between the initial and goal states

Front 21

problem space

Back 21

the initial state, the goal state, and all the possible intermediate states of a particular problem

Front 22

means-end analysis

Back 22

strategy for problem solving in which the primary goal is to reduce the difference between the initial and goal states

Front 23

how a problem is stated can affect its difficulty as demonstrated by which problems?

Back 23

acrobat and reverse acrobat problems, the mutilated checkerboard problem

Front 24

acrobat problem

Back 24

3 acrobats of diff sizes on three poles, there are rules as to how and where acrobats can jump. There is a initial and goal state

Front 25

reverse acrobat problem

Back 25

one of the rules was changed so that the small acrobat cannot stand on the large acrobat

Hint 25

this one took longer because the information that a large acrobat standing on a small acrobat is not consistent with our knowledge of the real world

Front 26

mutilated checkerboard problem

Back 26

a checkerboard has 64 squares which can be covered by 32 dominos, if two corners are removed can it be covered by 31 dominos? there were four conditions (1) blank board, (2) alternating color board (3) black and pink with word colors written on the board and (4) bread and butter written on the board

Hint 26

the solution is no because a domino has to cover two colors and two squares of the same color were removed. Those presented with boards that emphasized the difference between adjoining squares were easier to solve

Front 27

think-aloud protocol

Back 27

participants are asked to say out loud what they are thinking while doing the problem. not to describe what they are doing but to verbalize new thoughts as they happen. The goal of this is to determine what info the person is attending to while solving a problem

Hint 27

it reveals a shift in how the person perceives elements of a problem

Front 28

analogy

Back 28

the process of noticing connections between similar problems and applying the solution for one problem to the other problems

Front 29

analogical problem solving

Back 29

the technique of using the solution to a similar problem to guide the solution of a new problem

Hint 29

e.g. using solution of Russian marriage problem to solve mutilated checkerboard problem

Front 30

analogical transfer

Back 30

how ppl transfer their experience from solving one problem to solving another

Front 31

target problem

Back 31

a problem to be solved. Solutions of this problem can become easier when the problem-solver is exposed to an analogous source problem or story

Front 32

source problem/source story

Back 32

a problem or story that is analogous tot he target problem and which therefore provides info that can lead to a solution to the target problem

Front 33

radiation problem

Back 33

patient has tumor, radiation can kill it but can kill healthy tissue too if too high, but too low wont do anything. Solution is to kill tumor with multiple low beam rays that intersect

Hint 33

very few ppl figure this out
after reading analogous fortress story there was still only a 20% increase in the ppl who could solve.
this shows that many ppl still do not make connection between source and target problems. But when told to connect them success rate more than doubled.

Front 34

the process of analogical problem solving involves 3 steps

Back 34

(1) noticing that there is an analogous relationship
(2) mapping the correspondence
(3) applying the mapping to generate a parallel solution

Front 35

surface features

Back 35

specific elements that make up the problem

Hint 35

because surface features of analogous problems can be very different noticing the parallel characteristics can be difficult

Front 36

structural features

Back 36

the underlying principle that governs the solution

Hint 36

i.e. weak rays are used to avoid damaging healthy tissue or avoid breaking glass bulb

Front 37

effect of varying structural features

Back 37

kept structural features constant by using light bulb problem as source and radiation problem as target. The varied structure was presenting two different versions of light bulb problem. The fragile-glass version was same as original but in insufficient intensity version the lasers generate only low intensity and a higher power laser is needed.

Hint 37

the insufficient-intensity problem, less ppl were able to solve radiation problem because structural feature diff

Front 38

study page 344

Back 38

and 345

Front 39

analogical encoding

Back 39

participants compare two cases to illustrate a principle to help ppl discover similar structural features

Front 40

analogical paradox

Back 40

participants in psychological experiments tend to focus on surface features in analogy problems, whereas ppl in the real world frequently use deeper, more structural features

Front 41

in vivo problem-solving research

Back 41

involves observing ppl to determine how they solve problems in real-world situations by recording ppl in a number of diff settings

Front 42

experts

Back 42

extremely skilled or knowledgeable in a field

Hint 42

solve problems faster and with higher success rates than novices

Front 43

experiment that shows the difference in organization between experts and novices

Back 43

procedure: presented 24 physics problems to a group of experts and a group of novices and asked them to sort the problems into groups based on their similarities

Hint 43

the expert sorted problems based on structural features (deep structure, the underlying principles involved) while the novice sorted based on surface characteristics (surface features). Experts spend more time analyzing problems

Front 44

divergent thinking

Back 44

thinking that is open-ended, involving a large number of potential "solutions" and no "correct" answer

Front 45

convergent thinking

Back 45

thinking that works toward finding a solution to a specific problem that usually has a correct answer

Front 46

design fixation

Back 46

presenting a sample design influences the creation of new designs

Front 47

creative cognition

Back 47

a technique used to train ppl to think creatively