Common barriers to problem solving: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:00, 9 May 2012

Revision as of 12:08, 12 May 2012

Line 1:

{{multiple issues|copy edit=May 2012|essay-like=May 2012|wikify=May 2012}}

'''Common barriers to problem solving''' are mental constructs that impede our ability to correctly solve problems. These barriers prevent people from solving problems in the most efficient manner possible. Five of the most common processes and factors that researchers have identified as barriers to problem solving are ''[[Confirmation_bias|confirmation bias]], mental set, functional fixedness, unnecessary constraints, and irrelevant information.''

==Confirmation Bias==

Within the field of science there exists a fundamental standard termed the [[Scientific_method|scientific method]], which describes the process of discovering facts or truths about the world through unbiased consideration of all pertinent information, and impartial observation of and/or experimentation with that information. According to this theory, one is able to most accurately find a solution to a perceived problem by performing the aforementioned steps. The scientific method is not a process that is limited to scientists, but rather it is one that all people can practice in their respective fields of work as well as in their personal lives. [[Confirmation_bias|Confirmation bias]] can be described as one’s unconscious or unintentional corruption of the scientific method. Thus when one demonstrates confirmation bias, he or she is formally or informally collecting data, and then subsequently observing and experimenting with that data in such a way that favors a preconceived notion that may or may not have [[Motivation|''motivation'']].<ref>Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 176. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.</ref> Interestingly, research has found that professionals within scientific fields of study also experience confirmation bias. In Andreas Hergovich, Reinhard Schott, and Christoph Burger's experiment conducted online, for instance, it was discovered that professionals within the field of psychological research are likely to view scientific studies that are congruent with their preconceived understandings more favorably than studies that are incongruent with their established beliefs.<ref>Hergovich, Schott, Burger (2010). Biased evaluation of abstracts depending on topic and conclusion: Further evidence of a confirmation bias within scientific psychology. ''Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues,'' 29(3), 188-209.</ref>

Motivation refers to one’s desire to defend or find substantiation for beliefs (e.g., religious beliefs) that are important to him or her.<ref>Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.</ref> According to Raymond Nickerson, one can see the consequences of confirmation bias in real life situations, which range in severity from inefficient government policies to genocide. With respect to the latter and most severe ramification of this cognitive barrier, Nickerson argued that those involved in committing genocide of persons accused of [[Witch-hunt|witchcraft,]] an atrocity that occurred from the 1400s to 1600s AD, demonstrated confirmation bias with motivation. Researcher Michael Allen found evidence for confirmation bias with motivation in school children who worked to manipulate their science experiments in such a way that would produce their hoped for results.<ref>Allen (2011). Theory-led confirmation bias and experimental persona. ''Research in Science & Technological Education,'' 29(1), 107-127.</ref> However, confirmation bias does not necessarily require motivation. In 1960, [[Peter_Cathcart_Wason|Peter Cathcart Wason]] conducted an experiment in which participants first viewed three numbers and then created a hypothesis that proposed a rule that could have been used to create that triplet of numbers. When testing their hypotheses, participants tended to only create additional triplets of numbers that would confirm their hypotheses, and tended not to create triplets that would negate or disprove their hypotheses. Thus research also shows that people can and do work to confirm theories or ideas that do not support or engage personally significant beliefs. <ref>Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140. </ref>

==Mental Set==

Mental set was first articulated by [[Abraham_S._Luchins|Abraham Luchins]] in the 1940s and demonstrated in his well-known water jug experiments.<ref>Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54 (Whole No. 248).</ref> In these experiments, participants were asked to fill one jug with a specific amount of water using only other jugs (typically three) with different maximum capacities as tools. After Luchins gave his participants a set of water jug problems that could all be solved by employing a single technique, he would then give them a problem that could either be solved using that same technique or a novel and simpler method. Luchins discovered that his participants tended to use the same technique that they had become accustomed to despite the possibility of using a simpler alternative. <ref>Öllinger, Jones, & Knoblich (2008). Investigating the effect of mental set on insight problem solving. ''Experimental Psychology',' 55(4), 269–270.</ref> Thus mental set describes one’s inclination to attempt to solve problems in such a way that has proved successful in previous experiences. However, as Luchins' work revealed, such methods for finding a solution that have worked in the past may not be adequate or optimal for certain new but similar problems. Therefore, it is often necessary for people to move beyond their mental sets in order to find solutions. This was again demonstrated in [[Norman_Maier|Norman Maier]]'s 1931 experiment, which challenged participants to solve a problem by using a household object (pliers) in an unconventional manner. Maier observed that participants were often unable to view the object in a way that strayed from its typical use, a phenomenon regarded as a particular form of mental set (more specifically known as functional fixedness, which is the topic of the following section). When people cling rigidly to their mental sets, they are said to be experiencing ''fixation'', which is thus the psychological term used to describe a seeming obsession or preoccupation with attempted strategies that are repeatedly unsuccessful.<ref>^ Wiley, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of ___domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 24(4), 716-730.</ref>In the late 1990s, researcher Jennifer Wiley worked to reveal that expertise can work to create a mental set in persons considered to be experts in certain fields, and she furthermore gained evidence that the mental set created by expertise could lead to the development of fixation.<ref>Wiley, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of ___domain knowledge in creative problem

solving. Memory & Cognition, 24(4), 716-730. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.biola.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1998-10386-011&login.asp&site=ehost-live

</ref>

Line 15:

===Functional Fixedness===

'''[[Functional_fixedness|Functional fixedness]]''' is a specific form of mental set and fixation, which was alluded to earlier in the Maier experiment, and furthermore it is another way in which cognitive bias can be seen throughout daily life. Tim German and Clark Barrett describe this barrier as the fixed design of an object hindering the individual's ability to see it serving other functions. In more technical terms, these researchers explained that “[s]ubjects become “fixed” on the design function of the objects, and problem solving suffers relative to control conditions in which the object’s function is not demonstrated.”<ref>German, Tim, P., and Barrett, Clark., H. Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture. University of California, Santa Barbara. American psychological society. 16 (1), 2005.</ref> Functional fixedness is defined as only having that primary function of the object itself hinder the ability of it serving another purpose other then its original function. In research that highlighted the primary reasons that young children are immune to functional fixedness, it was stated that “functional fixedness...[is when]subjects are hindered in reaching the solution to a problem by their knowledge of an object’s conventional function.” <ref>German, Tim, P., Defeyter,  Margaret A. Immunity to functional fixedness in young children. University of Essex, Colchester, England. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 7 (4), 2000.</ref> Furthermore, it is important to note that functional fixedness can be easily expressed in commonplace situations. For instance, imagine the following situation: a man sees a bug on the floor that he wants to kill, but the only thing in his hand at the moment is a can of air freshener. If the man starts looking around for something in the house to kill the bug with instead of realizing that the can of air freshener could in fact be used not only as having its main function as to freshen the air, he is said to be experiencing functional fixedness. The man’s knowledge of the can being served as purely an air freshener hindered his ability to realize that it too could have been used to serve another purpose, which in this instance was as an instrument to kill the bug. Functional fixedness can happen on multiple occasions and can cause us to have certain cognitive biases. If we only see an object as serving one primary focus than we fail to realize that the object can be used in various ways other than its intended purpose. This can in turn cause many issues with regards to problem solving. Common sense seems to be a plausible answer to functional fixedness. One could make this argument because it seems rather simple to consider possible alternative uses for an object. Perhaps using common sense to solve this issue could be the most accurate answer within this context. With the previous stated example,it seems as if it would make perfect sense to use the can of air freshener to kill the bug rather than to search for something else to serve that function but, as research shows, this is often not the case.

Functional fixedness limits the ability for people to solve problems accurately by causing one to have a very narrow way of thinking. Functional fixedness can be seen in other types of learning behaviors as well. For instance, research has discovered the presence of functional fixedness in many educational instances. Researchers Furio, Calatayud, Baracenas, and Padilla stated that “... functional fixedness may be found in learning concepts as well as in solving chemistry problems.” <ref>Furio, C., Calatayud, M. L., Baracenas, S, L., and Padilla, O, M., Functional fixedness and functional reduction as common sense reasonings in chemical equilibrium and in geometry and polarity of molecules. Valencia, Spain. Science Education. 84. (5), 2000.</ref> There was more emphasis on this function being seen in this type of subject and others.

Line 31:

This problem can be quickly solved with a dawning of realization, or <i>insight</i>. A few minutes of struggling over a problem can bring these sudden insights, where the solver quickly sees the solution clearly. Problems such as this are most typically solved via insight and can be very difficult for the subject depending on either how they have structured the problem in their minds, how they draw on their past experiences, and how much they juggle this information in their working memories <ref>Weiten, Wayne. (2011). Psychology: themes and variations (8th ed.). California: Wadsworth.</ref> In the case of the nine-dot example, the solver has already been structured incorrectly in their minds because of the constraint that they have placed upon the solution. In addition to this, people experience struggles when they try to compare the problem to their prior knowledge, and they think they must keep their lines within the dots and not go beyond. They do this because trying to envision the dots connected outside of the basic square puts a strain on their working memory.<ref>Weiten, Wayne. (2011). Psychology: themes and variations (8th ed.). California: Wadsworth.</ref>

Luckily, the solution to the problem becomes obvious as insight occurs following incremental movements made toward the solution. These tiny movements happen without the solver knowing. Then when the insight is realized fully, the “aha” moment happens for the subject .<ref>Novick, L. R., & Bassok, M. (2005). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (Ch. 14, pp. 321-349). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. These moments of insight can take a long while to manifest or not so long at other times, but the way that the solution is arrived at after toiling over these barriers stays the same.

==Irrelevant Information==