.png){kind=icon}
Click on each question to check your answer.
Fill in the Blank Questions
1. A(n) ________ is derived from the original goal, and if solved, it can lead to the overall solution to the problem.
subgoal (p. 326)
2. ________ are used to analyze the problem-solving process. An example would be the Tower of Hanoi.
Toy problems (p. 327)
3. The ________ refers to a need to finish incomplete tasks.
Zeigarnik effect (p. 332)
4. The laboratory study of problem-solving can be considered ________ research.
in vitro (p. 332)
5. If a method used to study problem solving ended up not actually measuring what the method had intended, the approach would be considered to have low ________.
face validity (p. 334)
Short Answer Questions
1. What is an example of a stimulus that would lead to a Gestalt switch? What is a Gestalt switch?
Looking at a bi-stable figure would lead to a Gestalt switch. The switch in this case would refer to the moment when the other potential figure is observed (i.e., a sudden change in the way the information was organized). (p. 307)
2. What is an insight problem, and how does a Gestalt switch contribute to its solution?
An insight problem is a problem that is at first unsolvable. However, due to a sudden rearrangement or reorganization of the problem, the answer becomes evident. This sudden reorganization is known as a Gestalt switch. (p. 308)
3. What is structurally blind thinking, and how is it different from productive thinking?
Structurally blind thinking is the type of thinking people engage in when inappropriately reproducing previous ways of thinking to a current problem. Based on prior experience or learning people wrongly assume to know the relationships among the various elements of a current problem. Without that previous experience, one might be more inclined to openly examine the relationships among the various factors in a problem—a process known as productive thinking. (p. 310)
4. What is meant by functional fixedness?
Functional fixedness occurs when our previous experience or knowledge constrains the way we think about the functions of various items. We tend to think only of their obvious uses rather than the full range of less obvious functions they might serve. (p. 311)
5. In what ways is solving insight problems different from solving non-insight problems?
Solving insight problems is characteristically sudden, involuntary, and all-or-none. Solutions to non-insight problems, on the other hand, are deliberate, progress is more gradual, and the proximity to the solution can be sensed as a feeling of “warmth.” (p. 314)
6. What is the Einstellung effect? How does it help and how does it hinder problem solving?
After repeatedly solving similarly structured problems using the same procedure, people form a “rigid set” known as the Einstellung effect. The Einstellung effect helps solve problems that require the particular strategy that has become rigid, but it hinders the solution of problems that require a different strategy. (p. 322)
7. What are heuristics? Are they more similar to systematic or non-systematic algorithms? Why?
Heuristics are guiding principles, strategies, or rules of thumb that are used for solving problems. Unlike systematic algorithms, heuristics are only best approximations and thus open to error and ambiguity. They are most similar to non-systematic algorithms in that they are not guaranteed to arrive at the desired solution. (p. 325)
8. Wertheimer and Simon disagree over whether insight can be modelled in a computer program. Briefly outline each perspective of the disagreement.
Wertheimer criticized computer simulations of problem solving, saying that the crucial element of insight is nowhere to be found in computer programs. Simon countered that the language used by Gestalt psychologists is too vague and not amenable to scientific study. Simon proposed that the terms used by Gestalt psychology be abandoned and replaced with terms that are more scientifically explainable. (pp. 328–330)
9. According to Klahr and Simon (1999, 2001), what are the four complementary approaches to the study of scientific problem-solving? Which approaches are considered to have more face validity and which are considered to have more rigour and precision?
According to Klahr and Simon, the four complementary approaches to studying problem-solving in science are historical accounts, observations of ongoing scientific investigations, psychological laboratory studies, and computational models. Historical accounts and observations of ongoing scientific investigations are considered to have more face validity, while psychological laboratory studies and computational models are considered to have more rigour and control. (pp. 331–334)
10. What are in vivo and in vitro methods in the context of the psychological study of scientific problem-solving?
In the context of the psychological study of scientific problem solving, the in vivo method involves studying how actual scientists go about solving the problems they are faced with in their research. The in vitro method, on the other hand, involves modelling scientific problem solving in the psychological laboratory setting. (pp. 332–333)