psychological approaches towards problem solving

7.3 Problem-Solving

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe problem solving strategies
• Define algorithm and heuristic
• Explain some common roadblocks to effective problem solving

   People face problems every day—usually, multiple problems throughout the day. Sometimes these problems are straightforward: To double a recipe for pizza dough, for example, all that is required is that each ingredient in the recipe be doubled. Sometimes, however, the problems we encounter are more complex. For example, say you have a work deadline, and you must mail a printed copy of a report to your supervisor by the end of the business day. The report is time-sensitive and must be sent overnight. You finished the report last night, but your printer will not work today. What should you do? First, you need to identify the problem and then apply a strategy for solving the problem.

The study of human and animal problem solving processes has provided much insight toward the understanding of our conscious experience and led to advancements in computer science and artificial intelligence. Essentially much of cognitive science today represents studies of how we consciously and unconsciously make decisions and solve problems. For instance, when encountered with a large amount of information, how do we go about making decisions about the most efficient way of sorting and analyzing all the information in order to find what you are looking for as in visual search paradigms in cognitive psychology. Or in a situation where a piece of machinery is not working properly, how do we go about organizing how to address the issue and understand what the cause of the problem might be. How do we sort the procedures that will be needed and focus attention on what is important in order to solve problems efficiently. Within this section we will discuss some of these issues and examine processes related to human, animal and computer problem solving.

PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGIES

   When people are presented with a problem—whether it is a complex mathematical problem or a broken printer, how do you solve it? Before finding a solution to the problem, the problem must first be clearly identified. After that, one of many problem solving strategies can be applied, hopefully resulting in a solution.

Problems themselves can be classified into two different categories known as ill-defined and well-defined problems (Schacter, 2009). Ill-defined problems represent issues that do not have clear goals, solution paths, or expected solutions whereas well-defined problems have specific goals, clearly defined solutions, and clear expected solutions. Problem solving often incorporates pragmatics (logical reasoning) and semantics (interpretation of meanings behind the problem), and also in many cases require abstract thinking and creativity in order to find novel solutions. Within psychology, problem solving refers to a motivational drive for reading a definite “goal” from a present situation or condition that is either not moving toward that goal, is distant from it, or requires more complex logical analysis for finding a missing description of conditions or steps toward that goal. Processes relating to problem solving include problem finding also known as problem analysis, problem shaping where the organization of the problem occurs, generating alternative strategies, implementation of attempted solutions, and verification of the selected solution. Various methods of studying problem solving exist within the field of psychology including introspection, behavior analysis and behaviorism, simulation, computer modeling, and experimentation.

A problem-solving strategy is a plan of action used to find a solution. Different strategies have different action plans associated with them (table below). For example, a well-known strategy is trial and error. The old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” describes trial and error. In terms of your broken printer, you could try checking the ink levels, and if that doesn’t work, you could check to make sure the paper tray isn’t jammed. Or maybe the printer isn’t actually connected to your laptop. When using trial and error, you would continue to try different solutions until you solved your problem. Although trial and error is not typically one of the most time-efficient strategies, it is a commonly used one.

   Another type of strategy is an algorithm. An algorithm is a problem-solving formula that provides you with step-by-step instructions used to achieve a desired outcome (Kahneman, 2011). You can think of an algorithm as a recipe with highly detailed instructions that produce the same result every time they are performed. Algorithms are used frequently in our everyday lives, especially in computer science. When you run a search on the Internet, search engines like Google use algorithms to decide which entries will appear first in your list of results. Facebook also uses algorithms to decide which posts to display on your newsfeed. Can you identify other situations in which algorithms are used?

A heuristic is another type of problem solving strategy. While an algorithm must be followed exactly to produce a correct result, a heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. A “rule of thumb” is an example of a heuristic. Such a rule saves the person time and energy when making a decision, but despite its time-saving characteristics, it is not always the best method for making a rational decision. Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, but the impulse to use a heuristic occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):

• When one is faced with too much information
• When the time to make a decision is limited
• When the decision to be made is unimportant
• When there is access to very little information to use in making the decision
• When an appropriate heuristic happens to come to mind in the same moment

Working backwards is a useful heuristic in which you begin solving the problem by focusing on the end result. Consider this example: You live in Washington, D.C. and have been invited to a wedding at 4 PM on Saturday in Philadelphia. Knowing that Interstate 95 tends to back up any day of the week, you need to plan your route and time your departure accordingly. If you want to be at the wedding service by 3:30 PM, and it takes 2.5 hours to get to Philadelphia without traffic, what time should you leave your house? You use the working backwards heuristic to plan the events of your day on a regular basis, probably without even thinking about it.

Another useful heuristic is the practice of accomplishing a large goal or task by breaking it into a series of smaller steps. Students often use this common method to complete a large research project or long essay for school. For example, students typically brainstorm, develop a thesis or main topic, research the chosen topic, organize their information into an outline, write a rough draft, revise and edit the rough draft, develop a final draft, organize the references list, and proofread their work before turning in the project. The large task becomes less overwhelming when it is broken down into a series of small steps.

Further problem solving strategies have been identified (listed below) that incorporate flexible and creative thinking in order to reach solutions efficiently.

Additional Problem Solving Strategies :

• Abstraction – refers to solving the problem within a model of the situation before applying it to reality.
• Analogy – is using a solution that solves a similar problem.
• Brainstorming – refers to collecting an analyzing a large amount of solutions, especially within a group of people, to combine the solutions and developing them until an optimal solution is reached.
• Divide and conquer – breaking down large complex problems into smaller more manageable problems.
• Hypothesis testing – method used in experimentation where an assumption about what would happen in response to manipulating an independent variable is made, and analysis of the affects of the manipulation are made and compared to the original hypothesis.
• Lateral thinking – approaching problems indirectly and creatively by viewing the problem in a new and unusual light.
• Means-ends analysis – choosing and analyzing an action at a series of smaller steps to move closer to the goal.
• Method of focal objects – putting seemingly non-matching characteristics of different procedures together to make something new that will get you closer to the goal.
• Morphological analysis – analyzing the outputs of and interactions of many pieces that together make up a whole system.
• Proof – trying to prove that a problem cannot be solved. Where the proof fails becomes the starting point or solving the problem.
• Reduction – adapting the problem to be as similar problems where a solution exists.
• Research – using existing knowledge or solutions to similar problems to solve the problem.
• Root cause analysis – trying to identify the cause of the problem.

The strategies listed above outline a short summary of methods we use in working toward solutions and also demonstrate how the mind works when being faced with barriers preventing goals to be reached.

One example of means-end analysis can be found by using the Tower of Hanoi paradigm . This paradigm can be modeled as a word problems as demonstrated by the Missionary-Cannibal Problem :

Missionary-Cannibal Problem

Three missionaries and three cannibals are on one side of a river and need to cross to the other side. The only means of crossing is a boat, and the boat can only hold two people at a time. Your goal is to devise a set of moves that will transport all six of the people across the river, being in mind the following constraint: The number of cannibals can never exceed the number of missionaries in any location. Remember that someone will have to also row that boat back across each time.

Hint : At one point in your solution, you will have to send more people back to the original side than you just sent to the destination.

The actual Tower of Hanoi problem consists of three rods sitting vertically on a base with a number of disks of different sizes that can slide onto any rod. The puzzle starts with the disks in a neat stack in ascending order of size on one rod, the smallest at the top making a conical shape. The objective of the puzzle is to move the entire stack to another rod obeying the following rules:

• 1. Only one disk can be moved at a time.
• 2. Each move consists of taking the upper disk from one of the stacks and placing it on top of another stack or on an empty rod.
• 3. No disc may be placed on top of a smaller disk.

  Figure 7.02. Steps for solving the Tower of Hanoi in the minimum number of moves when there are 3 disks.

Figure 7.03. Graphical representation of nodes (circles) and moves (lines) of Tower of Hanoi.

The Tower of Hanoi is a frequently used psychological technique to study problem solving and procedure analysis. A variation of the Tower of Hanoi known as the Tower of London has been developed which has been an important tool in the neuropsychological diagnosis of executive function disorders and their treatment.

GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY AND PROBLEM SOLVING

As you may recall from the sensation and perception chapter, Gestalt psychology describes whole patterns, forms and configurations of perception and cognition such as closure, good continuation, and figure-ground. In addition to patterns of perception, Wolfgang Kohler, a German Gestalt psychologist traveled to the Spanish island of Tenerife in order to study animals behavior and problem solving in the anthropoid ape.

As an interesting side note to Kohler’s studies of chimp problem solving, Dr. Ronald Ley, professor of psychology at State University of New York provides evidence in his book A Whisper of Espionage  (1990) suggesting that while collecting data for what would later be his book  The Mentality of Apes (1925) on Tenerife in the Canary Islands between 1914 and 1920, Kohler was additionally an active spy for the German government alerting Germany to ships that were sailing around the Canary Islands. Ley suggests his investigations in England, Germany and elsewhere in Europe confirm that Kohler had served in the German military by building, maintaining and operating a concealed radio that contributed to Germany’s war effort acting as a strategic outpost in the Canary Islands that could monitor naval military activity approaching the north African coast.

While trapped on the island over the course of World War 1, Kohler applied Gestalt principles to animal perception in order to understand how they solve problems. He recognized that the apes on the islands also perceive relations between stimuli and the environment in Gestalt patterns and understand these patterns as wholes as opposed to pieces that make up a whole. Kohler based his theories of animal intelligence on the ability to understand relations between stimuli, and spent much of his time while trapped on the island investigation what he described as  insight , the sudden perception of useful or proper relations. In order to study insight in animals, Kohler would present problems to chimpanzee’s by hanging some banana’s or some kind of food so it was suspended higher than the apes could reach. Within the room, Kohler would arrange a variety of boxes, sticks or other tools the chimpanzees could use by combining in patterns or organizing in a way that would allow them to obtain the food (Kohler & Winter, 1925).

While viewing the chimpanzee’s, Kohler noticed one chimp that was more efficient at solving problems than some of the others. The chimp, named Sultan, was able to use long poles to reach through bars and organize objects in specific patterns to obtain food or other desirables that were originally out of reach. In order to study insight within these chimps, Kohler would remove objects from the room to systematically make the food more difficult to obtain. As the story goes, after removing many of the objects Sultan was used to using to obtain the food, he sat down ad sulked for a while, and then suddenly got up going over to two poles lying on the ground. Without hesitation Sultan put one pole inside the end of the other creating a longer pole that he could use to obtain the food demonstrating an ideal example of what Kohler described as insight. In another situation, Sultan discovered how to stand on a box to reach a banana that was suspended from the rafters illustrating Sultan’s perception of relations and the importance of insight in problem solving.

Grande (another chimp in the group studied by Kohler) builds a three-box structure to reach the bananas, while Sultan watches from the ground.  Insight , sometimes referred to as an “Ah-ha” experience, was the term Kohler used for the sudden perception of useful relations among objects during problem solving (Kohler, 1927; Radvansky & Ashcraft, 2013).

Solving puzzles.

   Problem-solving abilities can improve with practice. Many people challenge themselves every day with puzzles and other mental exercises to sharpen their problem-solving skills. Sudoku puzzles appear daily in most newspapers. Typically, a sudoku puzzle is a 9×9 grid. The simple sudoku below (see figure) is a 4×4 grid. To solve the puzzle, fill in the empty boxes with a single digit: 1, 2, 3, or 4. Here are the rules: The numbers must total 10 in each bolded box, each row, and each column; however, each digit can only appear once in a bolded box, row, and column. Time yourself as you solve this puzzle and compare your time with a classmate.

How long did it take you to solve this sudoku puzzle? (You can see the answer at the end of this section.)

   Here is another popular type of puzzle (figure below) that challenges your spatial reasoning skills. Connect all nine dots with four connecting straight lines without lifting your pencil from the paper:

Did you figure it out? (The answer is at the end of this section.) Once you understand how to crack this puzzle, you won’t forget.

   Take a look at the “Puzzling Scales” logic puzzle below (figure below). Sam Loyd, a well-known puzzle master, created and refined countless puzzles throughout his lifetime (Cyclopedia of Puzzles, n.d.).

What steps did you take to solve this puzzle? You can read the solution at the end of this section.

Pitfalls to problem solving.

   Not all problems are successfully solved, however. What challenges stop us from successfully solving a problem? Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Imagine a person in a room that has four doorways. One doorway that has always been open in the past is now locked. The person, accustomed to exiting the room by that particular doorway, keeps trying to get out through the same doorway even though the other three doorways are open. The person is stuck—but she just needs to go to another doorway, instead of trying to get out through the locked doorway. A mental set is where you persist in approaching a problem in a way that has worked in the past but is clearly not working now.

Functional fixedness is a type of mental set where you cannot perceive an object being used for something other than what it was designed for. During the Apollo 13 mission to the moon, NASA engineers at Mission Control had to overcome functional fixedness to save the lives of the astronauts aboard the spacecraft. An explosion in a module of the spacecraft damaged multiple systems. The astronauts were in danger of being poisoned by rising levels of carbon dioxide because of problems with the carbon dioxide filters. The engineers found a way for the astronauts to use spare plastic bags, tape, and air hoses to create a makeshift air filter, which saved the lives of the astronauts.

   Researchers have investigated whether functional fixedness is affected by culture. In one experiment, individuals from the Shuar group in Ecuador were asked to use an object for a purpose other than that for which the object was originally intended. For example, the participants were told a story about a bear and a rabbit that were separated by a river and asked to select among various objects, including a spoon, a cup, erasers, and so on, to help the animals. The spoon was the only object long enough to span the imaginary river, but if the spoon was presented in a way that reflected its normal usage, it took participants longer to choose the spoon to solve the problem. (German & Barrett, 2005). The researchers wanted to know if exposure to highly specialized tools, as occurs with individuals in industrialized nations, affects their ability to transcend functional fixedness. It was determined that functional fixedness is experienced in both industrialized and nonindustrialized cultures (German & Barrett, 2005).

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. Sometimes, however, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the $2,000 home? Why would the realtor show you the run-down houses and the nice house? The realtor may be challenging your anchoring bias. An anchoring bias occurs when you focus on one piece of information when making a decision or solving a problem. In this case, you’re so focused on the amount of money you are willing to spend that you may not recognize what kinds of houses are available at that price point.

The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms your existing beliefs. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Representative bias describes a faulty way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something; for example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.

Finally, the availability heuristic is a heuristic in which you make a decision based on an example, information, or recent experience that is that readily available to you, even though it may not be the best example to inform your decision . Biases tend to “preserve that which is already established—to maintain our preexisting knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and hypotheses” (Aronson, 1995; Kahneman, 2011). These biases are summarized in the table below.

Were you able to determine how many marbles are needed to balance the scales in the figure below? You need nine. Were you able to solve the problems in the figures above? Here are the answers.

   Many different strategies exist for solving problems. Typical strategies include trial and error, applying algorithms, and using heuristics. To solve a large, complicated problem, it often helps to break the problem into smaller steps that can be accomplished individually, leading to an overall solution. Roadblocks to problem solving include a mental set, functional fixedness, and various biases that can cloud decision making skills.

References:

Openstax Psychology text by Kathryn Dumper, William Jenkins, Arlene Lacombe, Marilyn Lovett and Marion Perlmutter licensed under CC BY v4.0. https://openstax.org/details/books/psychology

Review Questions:

1. A specific formula for solving a problem is called ________.

a. an algorithm

b. a heuristic

c. a mental set

d. trial and error

2. Solving the Tower of Hanoi problem tends to utilize a  ________ strategy of problem solving.

a. divide and conquer

b. means-end analysis

d. experiment

3. A mental shortcut in the form of a general problem-solving framework is called ________.

4. Which type of bias involves becoming fixated on a single trait of a problem?

a. anchoring bias

b. confirmation bias

c. representative bias

d. availability bias

5. Which type of bias involves relying on a false stereotype to make a decision?

6. Wolfgang Kohler analyzed behavior of chimpanzees by applying Gestalt principles to describe ________.

a. social adjustment

b. student load payment options

c. emotional learning

d. insight learning

7. ________ is a type of mental set where you cannot perceive an object being used for something other than what it was designed for.

a. functional fixedness

c. working memory

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. What is functional fixedness and how can overcoming it help you solve problems?

2. How does an algorithm save you time and energy when solving a problem?

Personal Application Question:

1. Which type of bias do you recognize in your own decision making processes? How has this bias affected how you’ve made decisions in the past and how can you use your awareness of it to improve your decisions making skills in the future?

anchoring bias

availability heuristic

confirmation bias

functional fixedness

hindsight bias

problem-solving strategy

representative bias

trial and error

working backwards

Answers to Exercises

algorithm:  problem-solving strategy characterized by a specific set of instructions

anchoring bias:  faulty heuristic in which you fixate on a single aspect of a problem to find a solution

availability heuristic:  faulty heuristic in which you make a decision based on information readily available to you

confirmation bias:  faulty heuristic in which you focus on information that confirms your beliefs

functional fixedness:  inability to see an object as useful for any other use other than the one for which it was intended

heuristic:  mental shortcut that saves time when solving a problem

hindsight bias:  belief that the event just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t

mental set:  continually using an old solution to a problem without results

problem-solving strategy:  method for solving problems

representative bias:  faulty heuristic in which you stereotype someone or something without a valid basis for your judgment

trial and error:  problem-solving strategy in which multiple solutions are attempted until the correct one is found

working backwards:  heuristic in which you begin to solve a problem by focusing on the end result

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

• Search Menu

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

48 Problem Solving

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara

• Published: 03 June 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Problem solving refers to cognitive processing directed at achieving a goal when the problem solver does not initially know a solution method. A problem exists when someone has a goal but does not know how to achieve it. Problems can be classified as routine or nonroutine, and as well defined or ill defined. The major cognitive processes in problem solving are representing, planning, executing, and monitoring. The major kinds of knowledge required for problem solving are facts, concepts, procedures, strategies, and beliefs. Classic theoretical approaches to the study of problem solving are associationism, Gestalt, and information processing. Current issues and suggested future issues include decision making, intelligence and creativity, teaching of thinking skills, expert problem solving, analogical reasoning, mathematical and scientific thinking, everyday thinking, and the cognitive neuroscience of problem solving. Common themes concern the domain specificity of problem solving and a focus on problem solving in authentic contexts.

The study of problem solving begins with defining problem solving, problem, and problem types. This introduction to problem solving is rounded out with an examination of cognitive processes in problem solving, the role of knowledge in problem solving, and historical approaches to the study of problem solving.

Definition of Problem Solving

Problem solving refers to cognitive processing directed at achieving a goal for which the problem solver does not initially know a solution method. This definition consists of four major elements (Mayer, 1992 ; Mayer & Wittrock, 2006 ):

Cognitive —Problem solving occurs within the problem solver’s cognitive system and can only be inferred indirectly from the problem solver’s behavior (including biological changes, introspections, and actions during problem solving). Process —Problem solving involves mental computations in which some operation is applied to a mental representation, sometimes resulting in the creation of a new mental representation. Directed —Problem solving is aimed at achieving a goal. Personal —Problem solving depends on the existing knowledge of the problem solver so that what is a problem for one problem solver may not be a problem for someone who already knows a solution method.

The definition is broad enough to include a wide array of cognitive activities such as deciding which apartment to rent, figuring out how to use a cell phone interface, playing a game of chess, making a medical diagnosis, finding the answer to an arithmetic word problem, or writing a chapter for a handbook. Problem solving is pervasive in human life and is crucial for human survival. Although this chapter focuses on problem solving in humans, problem solving also occurs in nonhuman animals and in intelligent machines.

How is problem solving related to other forms of high-level cognition processing, such as thinking and reasoning? Thinking refers to cognitive processing in individuals but includes both directed thinking (which corresponds to the definition of problem solving) and undirected thinking such as daydreaming (which does not correspond to the definition of problem solving). Thus, problem solving is a type of thinking (i.e., directed thinking).

Reasoning refers to problem solving within specific classes of problems, such as deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, the reasoner is given premises and must derive a conclusion by applying the rules of logic. For example, given that “A is greater than B” and “B is greater than C,” a reasoner can conclude that “A is greater than C.” In inductive reasoning, the reasoner is given (or has experienced) a collection of examples or instances and must infer a rule. For example, given that X, C, and V are in the “yes” group and x, c, and v are in the “no” group, the reasoning may conclude that B is in “yes” group because it is in uppercase format. Thus, reasoning is a type of problem solving.

Definition of Problem

A problem occurs when someone has a goal but does not know to achieve it. This definition is consistent with how the Gestalt psychologist Karl Duncker ( 1945 , p. 1) defined a problem in his classic monograph, On Problem Solving : “A problem arises when a living creature has a goal but does not know how this goal is to be reached.” However, today researchers recognize that the definition should be extended to include problem solving by intelligent machines. This definition can be clarified using an information processing approach by noting that a problem occurs when a situation is in the given state, the problem solver wants the situation to be in the goal state, and there is no obvious way to move from the given state to the goal state (Newell & Simon, 1972 ). Accordingly, the three main elements in describing a problem are the given state (i.e., the current state of the situation), the goal state (i.e., the desired state of the situation), and the set of allowable operators (i.e., the actions the problem solver is allowed to take). The definition of “problem” is broad enough to include the situation confronting a physician who wishes to make a diagnosis on the basis of preliminary tests and a patient examination, as well as a beginning physics student trying to solve a complex physics problem.

Types of Problems

It is customary in the problem-solving literature to make a distinction between routine and nonroutine problems. Routine problems are problems that are so familiar to the problem solver that the problem solver knows a solution method. For example, for most adults, “What is 365 divided by 12?” is a routine problem because they already know the procedure for long division. Nonroutine problems are so unfamiliar to the problem solver that the problem solver does not know a solution method. For example, figuring out the best way to set up a funding campaign for a nonprofit charity is a nonroutine problem for most volunteers. Technically, routine problems do not meet the definition of problem because the problem solver has a goal but knows how to achieve it. Much research on problem solving has focused on routine problems, although most interesting problems in life are nonroutine.

Another customary distinction is between well-defined and ill-defined problems. Well-defined problems have a clearly specified given state, goal state, and legal operators. Examples include arithmetic computation problems or games such as checkers or tic-tac-toe. Ill-defined problems have a poorly specified given state, goal state, or legal operators, or a combination of poorly defined features. Examples include solving the problem of global warming or finding a life partner. Although, ill-defined problems are more challenging, much research in problem solving has focused on well-defined problems.

Cognitive Processes in Problem Solving

The process of problem solving can be broken down into two main phases: problem representation , in which the problem solver builds a mental representation of the problem situation, and problem solution , in which the problem solver works to produce a solution. The major subprocess in problem representation is representing , which involves building a situation model —that is, a mental representation of the situation described in the problem. The major subprocesses in problem solution are planning , which involves devising a plan for how to solve the problem; executing , which involves carrying out the plan; and monitoring , which involves evaluating and adjusting one’s problem solving.

For example, given an arithmetic word problem such as “Alice has three marbles. Sarah has two more marbles than Alice. How many marbles does Sarah have?” the process of representing involves building a situation model in which Alice has a set of marbles, there is set of marbles for the difference between the two girls, and Sarah has a set of marbles that consists of Alice’s marbles and the difference set. In the planning process, the problem solver sets a goal of adding 3 and 2. In the executing process, the problem solver carries out the computation, yielding an answer of 5. In the monitoring process, the problem solver looks over what was done and concludes that 5 is a reasonable answer. In most complex problem-solving episodes, the four cognitive processes may not occur in linear order, but rather may interact with one another. Although some research focuses mainly on the execution process, problem solvers may tend to have more difficulty with the processes of representing, planning, and monitoring.

Knowledge for Problem Solving

An important theme in problem-solving research is that problem-solving proficiency on any task depends on the learner’s knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001 ; Mayer, 1992 ). Five kinds of knowledge are as follows:

Facts —factual knowledge about the characteristics of elements in the world, such as “Sacramento is the capital of California” Concepts —conceptual knowledge, including categories, schemas, or models, such as knowing the difference between plants and animals or knowing how a battery works Procedures —procedural knowledge of step-by-step processes, such as how to carry out long-division computations Strategies —strategic knowledge of general methods such as breaking a problem into parts or thinking of a related problem Beliefs —attitudinal knowledge about how one’s cognitive processing works such as thinking, “I’m good at this”

Although some research focuses mainly on the role of facts and procedures in problem solving, complex problem solving also depends on the problem solver’s concepts, strategies, and beliefs (Mayer, 1992 ).

Historical Approaches to Problem Solving

Psychological research on problem solving began in the early 1900s, as an outgrowth of mental philosophy (Humphrey, 1963 ; Mandler & Mandler, 1964 ). Throughout the 20th century four theoretical approaches developed: early conceptions, associationism, Gestalt psychology, and information processing.

Early Conceptions

The start of psychology as a science can be set at 1879—the year Wilhelm Wundt opened the first world’s psychology laboratory in Leipzig, Germany, and sought to train the world’s first cohort of experimental psychologists. Instead of relying solely on philosophical speculations about how the human mind works, Wundt sought to apply the methods of experimental science to issues addressed in mental philosophy. His theoretical approach became structuralism —the analysis of consciousness into its basic elements.

Wundt’s main contribution to the study of problem solving, however, was to call for its banishment. According to Wundt, complex cognitive processing was too complicated to be studied by experimental methods, so “nothing can be discovered in such experiments” (Wundt, 1911/1973 ). Despite his admonishments, however, a group of his former students began studying thinking mainly in Wurzburg, Germany. Using the method of introspection, subjects were asked to describe their thought process as they solved word association problems, such as finding the superordinate of “newspaper” (e.g., an answer is “publication”). Although the Wurzburg group—as they came to be called—did not produce a new theoretical approach, they found empirical evidence that challenged some of the key assumptions of mental philosophy. For example, Aristotle had proclaimed that all thinking involves mental imagery, but the Wurzburg group was able to find empirical evidence for imageless thought .

Associationism

The first major theoretical approach to take hold in the scientific study of problem solving was associationism —the idea that the cognitive representations in the mind consist of ideas and links between them and that cognitive processing in the mind involves following a chain of associations from one idea to the next (Mandler & Mandler, 1964 ; Mayer, 1992 ). For example, in a classic study, E. L. Thorndike ( 1911 ) placed a hungry cat in what he called a puzzle box—a wooden crate in which pulling a loop of string that hung from overhead would open a trap door to allow the cat to escape to a bowl of food outside the crate. Thorndike placed the cat in the puzzle box once a day for several weeks. On the first day, the cat engaged in many extraneous behaviors such as pouncing against the wall, pushing its paws through the slats, and meowing, but on successive days the number of extraneous behaviors tended to decrease. Overall, the time required to get out of the puzzle box decreased over the course of the experiment, indicating the cat was learning how to escape.

Thorndike’s explanation for how the cat learned to solve the puzzle box problem is based on an associationist view: The cat begins with a habit family hierarchy —a set of potential responses (e.g., pouncing, thrusting, meowing, etc.) all associated with the same stimulus (i.e., being hungry and confined) and ordered in terms of strength of association. When placed in the puzzle box, the cat executes its strongest response (e.g., perhaps pouncing against the wall), but when it fails, the strength of the association is weakened, and so on for each unsuccessful action. Eventually, the cat gets down to what was initially a weak response—waving its paw in the air—but when that response leads to accidentally pulling the string and getting out, it is strengthened. Over the course of many trials, the ineffective responses become weak and the successful response becomes strong. Thorndike refers to this process as the law of effect : Responses that lead to dissatisfaction become less associated with the situation and responses that lead to satisfaction become more associated with the situation. According to Thorndike’s associationist view, solving a problem is simply a matter of trial and error and accidental success. A major challenge to assocationist theory concerns the nature of transfer—that is, where does a problem solver find a creative solution that has never been performed before? Associationist conceptions of cognition can be seen in current research, including neural networks, connectionist models, and parallel distributed processing models (Rogers & McClelland, 2004 ).

Gestalt Psychology

The Gestalt approach to problem solving developed in the 1930s and 1940s as a counterbalance to the associationist approach. According to the Gestalt approach, cognitive representations consist of coherent structures (rather than individual associations) and the cognitive process of problem solving involves building a coherent structure (rather than strengthening and weakening of associations). For example, in a classic study, Kohler ( 1925 ) placed a hungry ape in a play yard that contained several empty shipping crates and a banana attached overhead but out of reach. Based on observing the ape in this situation, Kohler noted that the ape did not randomly try responses until one worked—as suggested by Thorndike’s associationist view. Instead, the ape stood under the banana, looked up at it, looked at the crates, and then in a flash of insight stacked the crates under the bananas as a ladder, and walked up the steps in order to reach the banana.

According to Kohler, the ape experienced a sudden visual reorganization in which the elements in the situation fit together in a way to solve the problem; that is, the crates could become a ladder that reduces the distance to the banana. Kohler referred to the underlying mechanism as insight —literally seeing into the structure of the situation. A major challenge of Gestalt theory is its lack of precision; for example, naming a process (i.e., insight) is not the same as explaining how it works. Gestalt conceptions can be seen in modern research on mental models and schemas (Gentner & Stevens, 1983 ).

Information Processing

The information processing approach to problem solving developed in the 1960s and 1970s and was based on the influence of the computer metaphor—the idea that humans are processors of information (Mayer, 2009 ). According to the information processing approach, problem solving involves a series of mental computations—each of which consists of applying a process to a mental representation (such as comparing two elements to determine whether they differ).

In their classic book, Human Problem Solving , Newell and Simon ( 1972 ) proposed that problem solving involved a problem space and search heuristics . A problem space is a mental representation of the initial state of the problem, the goal state of the problem, and all possible intervening states (based on applying allowable operators). Search heuristics are strategies for moving through the problem space from the given to the goal state. Newell and Simon focused on means-ends analysis , in which the problem solver continually sets goals and finds moves to accomplish goals.

Newell and Simon used computer simulation as a research method to test their conception of human problem solving. First, they asked human problem solvers to think aloud as they solved various problems such as logic problems, chess, and cryptarithmetic problems. Then, based on an information processing analysis, Newell and Simon created computer programs that solved these problems. In comparing the solution behavior of humans and computers, they found high similarity, suggesting that the computer programs were solving problems using the same thought processes as humans.

An important advantage of the information processing approach is that problem solving can be described with great clarity—as a computer program. An important limitation of the information processing approach is that it is most useful for describing problem solving for well-defined problems rather than ill-defined problems. The information processing conception of cognition lives on as a keystone of today’s cognitive science (Mayer, 2009 ).

Classic Issues in Problem Solving

Three classic issues in research on problem solving concern the nature of transfer (suggested by the associationist approach), the nature of insight (suggested by the Gestalt approach), and the role of problem-solving heuristics (suggested by the information processing approach).

Transfer refers to the effects of prior learning on new learning (or new problem solving). Positive transfer occurs when learning A helps someone learn B. Negative transfer occurs when learning A hinders someone from learning B. Neutral transfer occurs when learning A has no effect on learning B. Positive transfer is a central goal of education, but research shows that people often do not transfer what they learned to solving problems in new contexts (Mayer, 1992 ; Singley & Anderson, 1989 ).

Three conceptions of the mechanisms underlying transfer are specific transfer , general transfer , and specific transfer of general principles . Specific transfer refers to the idea that learning A will help someone learn B only if A and B have specific elements in common. For example, learning Spanish may help someone learn Latin because some of the vocabulary words are similar and the verb conjugation rules are similar. General transfer refers to the idea that learning A can help someone learn B even they have nothing specifically in common but A helps improve the learner’s mind in general. For example, learning Latin may help people learn “proper habits of mind” so they are better able to learn completely unrelated subjects as well. Specific transfer of general principles is the idea that learning A will help someone learn B if the same general principle or solution method is required for both even if the specific elements are different.

In a classic study, Thorndike and Woodworth ( 1901 ) found that students who learned Latin did not subsequently learn bookkeeping any better than students who had not learned Latin. They interpreted this finding as evidence for specific transfer—learning A did not transfer to learning B because A and B did not have specific elements in common. Modern research on problem-solving transfer continues to show that people often do not demonstrate general transfer (Mayer, 1992 ). However, it is possible to teach people a general strategy for solving a problem, so that when they see a new problem in a different context they are able to apply the strategy to the new problem (Judd, 1908 ; Mayer, 2008 )—so there is also research support for the idea of specific transfer of general principles.

Insight refers to a change in a problem solver’s mind from not knowing how to solve a problem to knowing how to solve it (Mayer, 1995 ; Metcalfe & Wiebe, 1987 ). In short, where does the idea for a creative solution come from? A central goal of problem-solving research is to determine the mechanisms underlying insight.

The search for insight has led to five major (but not mutually exclusive) explanatory mechanisms—insight as completing a schema, insight as suddenly reorganizing visual information, insight as reformulation of a problem, insight as removing mental blocks, and insight as finding a problem analog (Mayer, 1995 ). Completing a schema is exemplified in a study by Selz (Fridja & de Groot, 1982 ), in which people were asked to think aloud as they solved word association problems such as “What is the superordinate for newspaper?” To solve the problem, people sometimes thought of a coordinate, such as “magazine,” and then searched for a superordinate category that subsumed both terms, such as “publication.” According to Selz, finding a solution involved building a schema that consisted of a superordinate and two subordinate categories.

Reorganizing visual information is reflected in Kohler’s ( 1925 ) study described in a previous section in which a hungry ape figured out how to stack boxes as a ladder to reach a banana hanging above. According to Kohler, the ape looked around the yard and found the solution in a flash of insight by mentally seeing how the parts could be rearranged to accomplish the goal.

Reformulating a problem is reflected in a classic study by Duncker ( 1945 ) in which people are asked to think aloud as they solve the tumor problem—how can you destroy a tumor in a patient without destroying surrounding healthy tissue by using rays that at sufficient intensity will destroy any tissue in their path? In analyzing the thinking-aloud protocols—that is, transcripts of what the problem solvers said—Duncker concluded that people reformulated the goal in various ways (e.g., avoid contact with healthy tissue, immunize healthy tissue, have ray be weak in healthy tissue) until they hit upon a productive formulation that led to the solution (i.e., concentrating many weak rays on the tumor).

Removing mental blocks is reflected in classic studies by Duncker ( 1945 ) in which solving a problem involved thinking of a novel use for an object, and by Luchins ( 1942 ) in which solving a problem involved not using a procedure that had worked well on previous problems. Finding a problem analog is reflected in classic research by Wertheimer ( 1959 ) in which learning to find the area of a parallelogram is supported by the insight that one could cut off the triangle on one side and place it on the other side to form a rectangle—so a parallelogram is really a rectangle in disguise. The search for insight along each of these five lines continues in current problem-solving research.

Heuristics are problem-solving strategies, that is, general approaches to how to solve problems. Newell and Simon ( 1972 ) suggested three general problem-solving heuristics for moving from a given state to a goal state: random trial and error , hill climbing , and means-ends analysis . Random trial and error involves randomly selecting a legal move and applying it to create a new problem state, and repeating that process until the goal state is reached. Random trial and error may work for simple problems but is not efficient for complex ones. Hill climbing involves selecting the legal move that moves the problem solver closer to the goal state. Hill climbing will not work for problems in which the problem solver must take a move that temporarily moves away from the goal as is required in many problems.

Means-ends analysis involves creating goals and seeking moves that can accomplish the goal. If a goal cannot be directly accomplished, a subgoal is created to remove one or more obstacles. Newell and Simon ( 1972 ) successfully used means-ends analysis as the search heuristic in a computer program aimed at general problem solving, that is, solving a diverse collection of problems. However, people may also use specific heuristics that are designed to work for specific problem-solving situations (Gigerenzer, Todd, & ABC Research Group, 1999 ; Kahneman & Tversky, 1984 ).

Current and Future Issues in Problem Solving

Eight current issues in problem solving involve decision making, intelligence and creativity, teaching of thinking skills, expert problem solving, analogical reasoning, mathematical and scientific problem solving, everyday thinking, and the cognitive neuroscience of problem solving.

Decision Making

Decision making refers to the cognitive processing involved in choosing between two or more alternatives (Baron, 2000 ; Markman & Medin, 2002 ). For example, a decision-making task may involve choosing between getting $240 for sure or having a 25% change of getting $1000. According to economic theories such as expected value theory, people should chose the second option, which is worth $250 (i.e., .25 x $1000) rather than the first option, which is worth $240 (1.00 x $240), but psychological research shows that most people prefer the first option (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984 ).

Research on decision making has generated three classes of theories (Markman & Medin, 2002 ): descriptive theories, such as prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky), which are based on the ideas that people prefer to overweight the cost of a loss and tend to overestimate small probabilities; heuristic theories, which are based on the idea that people use a collection of short-cut strategies such as the availability heuristic (Gigerenzer et al., 1999 ; Kahneman & Tversky, 2000 ); and constructive theories, such as mental accounting (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000 ), in which people build a narrative to justify their choices to themselves. Future research is needed to examine decision making in more realistic settings.

Intelligence and Creativity

Although researchers do not have complete consensus on the definition of intelligence (Sternberg, 1990 ), it is reasonable to view intelligence as the ability to learn or adapt to new situations. Fluid intelligence refers to the potential to solve problems without any relevant knowledge, whereas crystallized intelligence refers to the potential to solve problems based on relevant prior knowledge (Sternberg & Gregorenko, 2003 ). As people gain more experience in a field, their problem-solving performance depends more on crystallized intelligence (i.e., domain knowledge) than on fluid intelligence (i.e., general ability) (Sternberg & Gregorenko, 2003 ). The ability to monitor and manage one’s cognitive processing during problem solving—which can be called metacognition —is an important aspect of intelligence (Sternberg, 1990 ). Research is needed to pinpoint the knowledge that is needed to support intelligent performance on problem-solving tasks.

Creativity refers to the ability to generate ideas that are original (i.e., other people do not think of the same idea) and functional (i.e., the idea works; Sternberg, 1999 ). Creativity is often measured using tests of divergent thinking —that is, generating as many solutions as possible for a problem (Guilford, 1967 ). For example, the uses test asks people to list as many uses as they can think of for a brick. Creativity is different from intelligence, and it is at the heart of creative problem solving—generating a novel solution to a problem that the problem solver has never seen before. An important research question concerns whether creative problem solving depends on specific knowledge or creativity ability in general.

Teaching of Thinking Skills

How can people learn to be better problem solvers? Mayer ( 2008 ) proposes four questions concerning teaching of thinking skills:

What to teach —Successful programs attempt to teach small component skills (such as how to generate and evaluate hypotheses) rather than improve the mind as a single monolithic skill (Covington, Crutchfield, Davies, & Olton, 1974 ). How to teach —Successful programs focus on modeling the process of problem solving rather than solely reinforcing the product of problem solving (Bloom & Broder, 1950 ). Where to teach —Successful programs teach problem-solving skills within the specific context they will be used rather than within a general course on how to solve problems (Nickerson, 1999 ). When to teach —Successful programs teaching higher order skills early rather than waiting until lower order skills are completely mastered (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988 ).

Overall, research on teaching of thinking skills points to the domain specificity of problem solving; that is, successful problem solving depends on the problem solver having domain knowledge that is relevant to the problem-solving task.

Expert Problem Solving

Research on expertise is concerned with differences between how experts and novices solve problems (Ericsson, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006 ). Expertise can be defined in terms of time (e.g., 10 years of concentrated experience in a field), performance (e.g., earning a perfect score on an assessment), or recognition (e.g., receiving a Nobel Prize or becoming Grand Master in chess). For example, in classic research conducted in the 1940s, de Groot ( 1965 ) found that chess experts did not have better general memory than chess novices, but they did have better domain-specific memory for the arrangement of chess pieces on the board. Chase and Simon ( 1973 ) replicated this result in a better controlled experiment. An explanation is that experts have developed schemas that allow them to chunk collections of pieces into a single configuration.

In another landmark study, Larkin et al. ( 1980 ) compared how experts (e.g., physics professors) and novices (e.g., first-year physics students) solved textbook physics problems about motion. Experts tended to work forward from the given information to the goal, whereas novices tended to work backward from the goal to the givens using a means-ends analysis strategy. Experts tended to store their knowledge in an integrated way, whereas novices tended to store their knowledge in isolated fragments. In another study, Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser ( 1981 ) found that experts tended to focus on the underlying physics concepts (such as conservation of energy), whereas novices tended to focus on the surface features of the problem (such as inclined planes or springs). Overall, research on expertise is useful in pinpointing what experts know that is different from what novices know. An important theme is that experts rely on domain-specific knowledge rather than solely general cognitive ability.

Analogical Reasoning

Analogical reasoning occurs when people solve one problem by using their knowledge about another problem (Holyoak, 2005 ). For example, suppose a problem solver learns how to solve a problem in one context using one solution method and then is given a problem in another context that requires the same solution method. In this case, the problem solver must recognize that the new problem has structural similarity to the old problem (i.e., it may be solved by the same method), even though they do not have surface similarity (i.e., the cover stories are different). Three steps in analogical reasoning are recognizing —seeing that a new problem is similar to a previously solved problem; abstracting —finding the general method used to solve the old problem; and mapping —using that general method to solve the new problem.

Research on analogical reasoning shows that people often do not recognize that a new problem can be solved by the same method as a previously solved problem (Holyoak, 2005 ). However, research also shows that successful analogical transfer to a new problem is more likely when the problem solver has experience with two old problems that have the same underlying structural features (i.e., they are solved by the same principle) but different surface features (i.e., they have different cover stories) (Holyoak, 2005 ). This finding is consistent with the idea of specific transfer of general principles as described in the section on “Transfer.”

Mathematical and Scientific Problem Solving

Research on mathematical problem solving suggests that five kinds of knowledge are needed to solve arithmetic word problems (Mayer, 2008 ):

Factual knowledge —knowledge about the characteristics of problem elements, such as knowing that there are 100 cents in a dollar Schematic knowledge —knowledge of problem types, such as being able to recognize time-rate-distance problems Strategic knowledge —knowledge of general methods, such as how to break a problem into parts Procedural knowledge —knowledge of processes, such as how to carry our arithmetic operations Attitudinal knowledge —beliefs about one’s mathematical problem-solving ability, such as thinking, “I am good at this”

People generally possess adequate procedural knowledge but may have difficulty in solving mathematics problems because they lack factual, schematic, strategic, or attitudinal knowledge (Mayer, 2008 ). Research is needed to pinpoint the role of domain knowledge in mathematical problem solving.

Research on scientific problem solving shows that people harbor misconceptions, such as believing that a force is needed to keep an object in motion (McCloskey, 1983 ). Learning to solve science problems involves conceptual change, in which the problem solver comes to recognize that previous conceptions are wrong (Mayer, 2008 ). Students can be taught to engage in scientific reasoning such as hypothesis testing through direct instruction in how to control for variables (Chen & Klahr, 1999 ). A central theme of research on scientific problem solving concerns the role of domain knowledge.

Everyday Thinking

Everyday thinking refers to problem solving in the context of one’s life outside of school. For example, children who are street vendors tend to use different procedures for solving arithmetic problems when they are working on the streets than when they are in school (Nunes, Schlieman, & Carraher, 1993 ). This line of research highlights the role of situated cognition —the idea that thinking always is shaped by the physical and social context in which it occurs (Robbins & Aydede, 2009 ). Research is needed to determine how people solve problems in authentic contexts.

Cognitive Neuroscience of Problem Solving

The cognitive neuroscience of problem solving is concerned with the brain activity that occurs during problem solving. For example, using fMRI brain imaging methodology, Goel ( 2005 ) found that people used the language areas of the brain to solve logical reasoning problems presented in sentences (e.g., “All dogs are pets…”) and used the spatial areas of the brain to solve logical reasoning problems presented in abstract letters (e.g., “All D are P…”). Cognitive neuroscience holds the potential to make unique contributions to the study of problem solving.

Problem solving has always been a topic at the fringe of cognitive psychology—too complicated to study intensively but too important to completely ignore. Problem solving—especially in realistic environments—is messy in comparison to studying elementary processes in cognition. The field remains fragmented in the sense that topics such as decision making, reasoning, intelligence, expertise, mathematical problem solving, everyday thinking, and the like are considered to be separate topics, each with its own separate literature. Yet some recurring themes are the role of domain-specific knowledge in problem solving and the advantages of studying problem solving in authentic contexts.

Future Directions

Some important issues for future research include the three classic issues examined in this chapter—the nature of problem-solving transfer (i.e., How are people able to use what they know about previous problem solving to help them in new problem solving?), the nature of insight (e.g., What is the mechanism by which a creative solution is constructed?), and heuristics (e.g., What are some teachable strategies for problem solving?). In addition, future research in problem solving should continue to pinpoint the role of domain-specific knowledge in problem solving, the nature of cognitive ability in problem solving, how to help people develop proficiency in solving problems, and how to provide aids for problem solving.

Anderson L. W. , Krathwohl D. R. , Airasian P. W. , Cruikshank K. A. , Mayer R. E. , Pintrich P. R. , Raths, J., & Wittrock M. C. ( 2001 ). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York : Longman.

Baron J. ( 2000 ). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York : Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bloom B. S. , & Broder B. J. ( 1950 ). Problem-solving processes of college students: An exploratory investigation. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Chase W. G. , & Simon H. A. ( 1973 ). Perception in chess.   Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.

Chen Z. , & Klahr D. ( 1999 ). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variable strategy . Child Development, 70, 1098–1120.

Chi M. T. H. , Feltovich P. J. , & Glaser R. ( 1981 ). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

Covington M. V. , Crutchfield R. S. , Davies L. B. , & Olton R. M. ( 1974 ). The productive thinking program. Columbus, OH : Merrill.

de Groot A. D. ( 1965 ). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, The Netherlands : Mouton.

Duncker K. ( 1945 ). On problem solving.   Psychological Monographs, 58 (3) (Whole No. 270).

Ericsson K. A. , Feltovich P. J. , & Hoffman R. R. (Eds.). ( 2006 ). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Fridja N. H. , & de Groot A. D. ( 1982 ). Otto Selz: His contribution to psychology. The Hague, The Netherlands : Mouton.

Gentner D. , & Stevens A. L. (Eds.). ( 1983 ). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Gigerenzer G. , Todd P. M. , & ABC Research Group (Eds.). ( 1999 ). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford, England : Oxford University Press.

Goel V. ( 2005 ). Cognitive neuroscience of deductive reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 475–492). New York : Cambridge University Press.

Guilford J. P. ( 1967 ). The nature of human intelligence. New York : McGraw-Hill.

Holyoak K. J. ( 2005 ). Analogy. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117–142). New York : Cambridge University Press.

Humphrey G. ( 1963 ). Thinking: An introduction to experimental psychology. New York : Wiley.

Judd C. H. ( 1908 ). The relation of special training and general intelligence. Educational Review, 36, 28–42.

Kahneman D. , & Tversky A. ( 1984 ). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.

Kahneman D. , & Tversky A. (Eds.). ( 2000 ). Choices, values, and frames. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Kohler W. ( 1925 ). The mentality of apes. New York : Liveright.

Larkin J. H. , McDermott J. , Simon D. P. , & Simon H. A. ( 1980 ). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.

Luchins A. ( 1942 ). Mechanization in problem solving.   Psychological Monographs, 54 (6) (Whole No. 248).

Mandler J. M. , & Mandler G. ( 1964 ). Thinking from associationism to Gestalt. New York : Wiley.

Markman A. B. , & Medin D. L. ( 2002 ). Decision making. In D. Medin (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology, Vol. 2. Memory and cognitive processes (2nd ed., pp. 413–466). New York : Wiley.

Mayer R. E. ( 1992 ). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed). New York : Freeman.

Mayer R. E. ( 1995 ). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered questions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

Mayer R. E. ( 2008 ). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Merrill Prentice Hall.

Mayer R. E. ( 2009 ). Information processing. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (pp. 168–174). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.

Mayer R. E. , & Wittrock M. C. ( 2006 ). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.

McCloskey M. ( 1983 ). Intuitive physics.   Scientific American, 248 (4), 122–130.

Metcalfe J. , & Wiebe D. ( 1987 ). Intuition in insight and non-insight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 15, 238–246.

Newell A. , & Simon H. A. ( 1972 ). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.

Nickerson R. S. ( 1999 ). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392–430). New York : Cambridge University Press.

Nunes T. , Schliemann A. D. , & Carraher D. W , ( 1993 ). Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.

Robbins P. , & Aydede M. (Eds.). ( 2009 ). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Rogers T. T. , & McClelland J. L. ( 2004 ). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

Singley M. K. , & Anderson J. R. ( 1989 ). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.

Sternberg R. J. ( 1990 ). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg R. J. ( 1999 ). Handbook of creativity. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg R. J. , & Gregorenko E. L. (Eds.). ( 2003 ). The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Tharp R. G. , & Gallimore R. ( 1988 ). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Thorndike E. L. ( 1911 ). Animal intelligence. New York: Hafner.

Thorndike E. L. , & Woodworth R. S. ( 1901 ). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261.

Wertheimer M. ( 1959 ). Productive thinking. New York : Harper and Collins.

Wundt W. ( 1973 ). An introduction to experimental psychology. New York : Arno Press. (Original work published in 1911).

Further Reading

Baron, J. ( 2008 ). Thinking and deciding (4th ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Duncker, K. ( 1945 ). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs , 58(3) (Whole No. 270).

Holyoak, K. J. , & Morrison, R. G. ( 2005 ). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. , & Wittrock, M. C. ( 2006 ). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R. J. , & Ben-Zeev, T. ( 2001 ). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought . New York: Oxford University Press.

Weisberg, R. W. ( 2006 ). Creativity . New York: Wiley.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thinking and Intelligence

Introduction to Thinking and Problem-Solving

What you’ll learn to do: describe cognition and problem-solving strategies.

Imagine all of your thoughts as if they were physical entities, swirling rapidly inside your mind. How is it possible that the brain is able to move from one thought to the next in an organized, orderly fashion? The brain is endlessly perceiving, processing, planning, organizing, and remembering—it is always active. Yet, you don’t notice most of your brain’s activity as you move throughout your daily routine. This is only one facet of the complex processes involved in cognition. Simply put, cognition is thinking, and it encompasses the processes associated with perception, knowledge, problem solving, judgment, language, and memory. Scientists who study cognition are searching for ways to understand how we integrate, organize, and utilize our conscious cognitive experiences without being aware of all of the unconscious work that our brains are doing (for example, Kahneman, 2011).

Learning Objectives

• Distinguish between concepts and prototypes
• Explain the difference between natural and artificial concepts
• Describe problem solving strategies, including algorithms and heuristics
• Explain some common roadblocks to effective problem solving

CC licensed content, Original

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

CC licensed content, Shared previously

• What Is Cognition?. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/7-1-what-is-cognition . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• A Thinking Man Image. Authored by : Wesley Nitsckie. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/nitsckie/5507777269 . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Problem-Solving Therapy?

Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of "Therapy in Focus: What to Expect from CBT for Social Anxiety Disorder" and "7 Weeks to Reduce Anxiety." She has a Master's degree in psychology.

Daniel B. Block, MD, is an award-winning, board-certified psychiatrist who operates a private practice in Pennsylvania.

Verywell / Madelyn Goodnight

Problem-Solving Therapy Techniques

How effective is problem-solving therapy, things to consider, how to get started.

Problem-solving therapy is a brief intervention that provides people with the tools they need to identify and solve problems that arise from big and small life stressors. It aims to improve your overall quality of life and reduce the negative impact of psychological and physical illness.

Problem-solving therapy can be used to treat depression , among other conditions. It can be administered by a doctor or mental health professional and may be combined with other treatment approaches.

At a Glance

Problem-solving therapy is a short-term treatment used to help people who are experiencing depression, stress, PTSD, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and other mental health problems develop the tools they need to deal with challenges. This approach teaches people to identify problems, generate solutions, and implement those solutions. Let's take a closer look at how problem-solving therapy can help people be more resilient and adaptive in the face of stress.

Problem-solving therapy is based on a model that takes into account the importance of real-life problem-solving. In other words, the key to managing the impact of stressful life events is to know how to address issues as they arise. Problem-solving therapy is very practical in its approach and is only concerned with the present, rather than delving into your past.

This form of therapy can take place one-on-one or in a group format and may be offered in person or online via telehealth . Sessions can be anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours long. 

Key Components

There are two major components that make up the problem-solving therapy framework:

• Applying a positive problem-solving orientation to your life
• Using problem-solving skills

A positive problem-solving orientation means viewing things in an optimistic light, embracing self-efficacy , and accepting the idea that problems are a normal part of life. Problem-solving skills are behaviors that you can rely on to help you navigate conflict, even during times of stress. This includes skills like:

• Knowing how to identify a problem
• Defining the problem in a helpful way
• Trying to understand the problem more deeply
• Setting goals related to the problem
• Generating alternative, creative solutions to the problem
• Choosing the best course of action
• Implementing the choice you have made
• Evaluating the outcome to determine next steps

Problem-solving therapy is all about training you to become adaptive in your life so that you will start to see problems as challenges to be solved instead of insurmountable obstacles. It also means that you will recognize the action that is required to engage in effective problem-solving techniques.

Planful Problem-Solving

One problem-solving technique, called planful problem-solving, involves following a series of steps to fix issues in a healthy, constructive way:

• Problem definition and formulation : This step involves identifying the real-life problem that needs to be solved and formulating it in a way that allows you to generate potential solutions.
• Generation of alternative solutions : This stage involves coming up with various potential solutions to the problem at hand. The goal in this step is to brainstorm options to creatively address the life stressor in ways that you may not have previously considered.
• Decision-making strategies : This stage involves discussing different strategies for making decisions as well as identifying obstacles that may get in the way of solving the problem at hand.
• Solution implementation and verification : This stage involves implementing a chosen solution and then verifying whether it was effective in addressing the problem.

Other Techniques

Other techniques your therapist may go over include:

• Problem-solving multitasking , which helps you learn to think clearly and solve problems effectively even during times of stress
• Stop, slow down, think, and act (SSTA) , which is meant to encourage you to become more emotionally mindful when faced with conflict
• Healthy thinking and imagery , which teaches you how to embrace more positive self-talk while problem-solving

What Problem-Solving Therapy Can Help With

Problem-solving therapy addresses life stress issues and focuses on helping you find solutions to concrete issues. This approach can be applied to problems associated with various psychological and physiological symptoms.

Mental Health Issues

Problem-solving therapy may help address mental health issues, like:

• Chronic stress due to accumulating minor issues
• Complications associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI)
• Emotional distress
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Problems associated with a chronic disease like cancer, heart disease, or diabetes
• Self-harm and feelings of hopelessness
• Substance use
• Suicidal ideation

Specific Life Challenges

This form of therapy is also helpful for dealing with specific life problems, such as:

• Death of a loved one
• Dissatisfaction at work
• Everyday life stressors
• Family problems
• Financial difficulties
• Relationship conflicts

Your doctor or mental healthcare professional will be able to advise whether problem-solving therapy could be helpful for your particular issue. In general, if you are struggling with specific, concrete problems that you are having trouble finding solutions for, problem-solving therapy could be helpful for you.

Benefits of Problem-Solving Therapy

The skills learned in problem-solving therapy can be helpful for managing all areas of your life. These can include:

• Being able to identify which stressors trigger your negative emotions (e.g., sadness, anger)
• Confidence that you can handle problems that you face
• Having a systematic approach on how to deal with life's problems
• Having a toolbox of strategies to solve the issues you face
• Increased confidence to find creative solutions
• Knowing how to identify which barriers will impede your progress
• Knowing how to manage emotions when they arise
• Reduced avoidance and increased action-taking
• The ability to accept life problems that can't be solved
• The ability to make effective decisions
• The development of patience (realizing that not all problems have a "quick fix")

Problem-solving therapy can help people feel more empowered to deal with the problems they face in their lives. Rather than feeling overwhelmed when stressors begin to take a toll, this therapy introduces new coping skills that can boost self-efficacy and resilience .

Other Types of Therapy

Other similar types of therapy include cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) . While these therapies work to change thinking and behaviors, they work a bit differently. Both CBT and SFBT are less structured than problem-solving therapy and may focus on broader issues. CBT focuses on identifying and changing maladaptive thoughts, and SFBT works to help people look for solutions and build self-efficacy based on strengths.

This form of therapy was initially developed to help people combat stress through effective problem-solving, and it was later adapted to address clinical depression specifically. Today, much of the research on problem-solving therapy deals with its effectiveness in treating depression.

Problem-solving therapy has been shown to help depression in: 

• Older adults
• People coping with serious illnesses like cancer

Problem-solving therapy also appears to be effective as a brief treatment for depression, offering benefits in as little as six to eight sessions with a therapist or another healthcare professional. This may make it a good option for someone unable to commit to a lengthier treatment for depression.

Problem-solving therapy is not a good fit for everyone. It may not be effective at addressing issues that don't have clear solutions, like seeking meaning or purpose in life. Problem-solving therapy is also intended to treat specific problems, not general habits or thought patterns .

In general, it's also important to remember that problem-solving therapy is not a primary treatment for mental disorders. If you are living with the symptoms of a serious mental illness such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia , you may need additional treatment with evidence-based approaches for your particular concern.

Problem-solving therapy is best aimed at someone who has a mental or physical issue that is being treated separately, but who also has life issues that go along with that problem that has yet to be addressed.

For example, it could help if you can't clean your house or pay your bills because of your depression, or if a cancer diagnosis is interfering with your quality of life.

Your doctor may be able to recommend therapists in your area who utilize this approach, or they may offer it themselves as part of their practice. You can also search for a problem-solving therapist with help from the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Society of Clinical Psychology .

If receiving problem-solving therapy from a doctor or mental healthcare professional is not an option for you, you could also consider implementing it as a self-help strategy using a workbook designed to help you learn problem-solving skills on your own.

During your first session, your therapist may spend some time explaining their process and approach. They may ask you to identify the problem you’re currently facing, and they’ll likely discuss your goals for therapy .

Keep In Mind

Problem-solving therapy may be a short-term intervention that's focused on solving a specific issue in your life. If you need further help with something more pervasive, it can also become a longer-term treatment option.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, BetterHelp, and ReGain. Find out which option is the best for you.

Shang P, Cao X, You S, Feng X, Li N, Jia Y. Problem-solving therapy for major depressive disorders in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials .  Aging Clin Exp Res . 2021;33(6):1465-1475. doi:10.1007/s40520-020-01672-3

Cuijpers P, Wit L de, Kleiboer A, Karyotaki E, Ebert DD. Problem-solving therapy for adult depression: An updated meta-analysis . Eur Psychiatry . 2018;48(1):27-37. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.11.006

Nezu AM, Nezu CM, D'Zurilla TJ. Problem-Solving Therapy: A Treatment Manual . New York; 2013. doi:10.1891/9780826109415.0001

Owens D, Wright-Hughes A, Graham L, et al. Problem-solving therapy rather than treatment as usual for adults after self-harm: a pragmatic, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (the MIDSHIPS trial) .  Pilot Feasibility Stud . 2020;6:119. doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00668-0

Sorsdahl K, Stein DJ, Corrigall J, et al. The efficacy of a blended motivational interviewing and problem solving therapy intervention to reduce substance use among patients presenting for emergency services in South Africa: A randomized controlled trial . Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy . 2015;10(1):46. doi:doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0042-1

Margolis SA, Osborne P, Gonzalez JS. Problem solving . In: Gellman MD, ed. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine . Springer International Publishing; 2020:1745-1747. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39903-0_208

Kirkham JG, Choi N, Seitz DP. Meta-analysis of problem solving therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder in older adults . Int J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2016;31(5):526-535. doi:10.1002/gps.4358

Garand L, Rinaldo DE, Alberth MM, et al. Effects of problem solving therapy on mental health outcomes in family caregivers of persons with a new diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or early dementia: A randomized controlled trial . Am J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2014;22(8):771-781. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2013.07.007

Noyes K, Zapf AL, Depner RM, et al. Problem-solving skills training in adult cancer survivors: Bright IDEAS-AC pilot study .  Cancer Treat Res Commun . 2022;31:100552. doi:10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100552

Albert SM, King J, Anderson S, et al. Depression agency-based collaborative: effect of problem-solving therapy on risk of common mental disorders in older adults with home care needs . The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry . 2019;27(6):619-624. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2019.01.002

By Arlin Cuncic, MA Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of "Therapy in Focus: What to Expect from CBT for Social Anxiety Disorder" and "7 Weeks to Reduce Anxiety." She has a Master's degree in psychology.

Definition:

Problem Solving is the process of identifying, analyzing, and finding effective solutions to complex issues or challenges.

Key Steps in Problem Solving:

• Identification of the problem: Recognizing and clearly defining the issue that needs to be resolved.
• Analysis and research: Gathering relevant information, data, and facts to understand the problem in-depth.
• Formulating strategies: Developing various approaches and plans to tackle the problem effectively.
• Evaluation and selection: Assessing the viability and potential outcomes of the proposed solutions and selecting the most appropriate one.
• Implementation: Putting the chosen solution into action and executing the necessary steps to resolve the problem.
• Monitoring and feedback: Continuously evaluating the implemented solution and obtaining feedback to ensure its effectiveness.
• Adaptation and improvement: Modifying and refining the solution as needed to optimize results and prevent similar problems from arising in the future.

Skills and Qualities for Effective Problem Solving:

• Analytical thinking: The ability to break down complex problems into smaller, manageable components and analyze them thoroughly.
• Creativity: Thinking outside the box and generating innovative solutions.
• Decision making: Making logical and informed choices based on available data and critical thinking.
• Communication: Clearly conveying ideas, listening actively, and collaborating with others to solve problems as a team.
• Resilience: Maintaining a positive mindset, perseverance, and adaptability in the face of challenges.
• Resourcefulness: Utilizing available resources and seeking new approaches when confronted with obstacles.
• Time management: Effectively organizing and prioritizing tasks to optimize problem-solving efficiency.

The Process of Problem Solving

• Editor's Choice
• Experimental Psychology
• Problem Solving

In a 2013 article published in the Journal of Cognitive Psychology , Ngar Yin Louis Lee (Chinese University of Hong Kong) and APS William James Fellow Philip N. Johnson-Laird (Princeton University) examined the ways people develop strategies to solve related problems. In a series of three experiments, the researchers asked participants to solve series of matchstick problems.

In matchstick problems, participants are presented with an array of joined squares. Each square in the array is comprised of separate pieces. Participants are asked to remove a certain number of pieces from the array while still maintaining a specific number of intact squares. Matchstick problems are considered to be fairly sophisticated, as there is generally more than one solution, several different tactics can be used to complete the task, and the types of tactics that are appropriate can change depending on the configuration of the array.

Louis Lee and Johnson-Laird began by examining what influences the tactics people use when they are first confronted with the matchstick problem. They found that initial problem-solving tactics were constrained by perceptual features of the array, with participants solving symmetrical problems and problems with salient solutions faster. Participants frequently used tactics that involved symmetry and salience even when other solutions that did not involve these features existed.

To examine how problem solving develops over time, the researchers had participants solve a series of matchstick problems while verbalizing their problem-solving thought process. The findings from this second experiment showed that people tend to go through two different stages when solving a series of problems.

People begin their problem-solving process in a generative manner during which they explore various tactics — some successful and some not. Then they use their experience to narrow down their choices of tactics, focusing on those that are the most successful. The point at which people begin to rely on this newfound tactical knowledge to create their strategic moves indicates a shift into a more evaluative stage of problem solving.

In the third and last experiment, participants completed a set of matchstick problems that could be solved using similar tactics and then solved several problems that required the use of novel tactics.  The researchers found that participants often had trouble leaving their set of successful tactics behind and shifting to new strategies.

From the three studies, the researchers concluded that when people tackle a problem, their initial moves may be constrained by perceptual components of the problem. As they try out different tactics, they hone in and settle on the ones that are most efficient; however, this deduced knowledge can in turn come to constrain players’ generation of moves — something that can make it difficult to switch to new tactics when required.

These findings help expand our understanding of the role of reasoning and deduction in problem solving and of the processes involved in the shift from less to more effective problem-solving strategies.

Reference Louis Lee, N. Y., Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2013). Strategic changes in problem solving. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 , 165–173. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2012.719021

good work for other researcher

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Careers Up Close: Joel Anderson on Gender and Sexual Prejudices, the Freedoms of Academic Research, and the Importance of Collaboration

Joel Anderson, a senior research fellow at both Australian Catholic University and La Trobe University, researches group processes, with a specific interest on prejudice, stigma, and stereotypes.

Experimental Methods Are Not Neutral Tools

Ana Sofia Morais and Ralph Hertwig explain how experimental psychologists have painted too negative a picture of human rationality, and how their pessimism is rooted in a seemingly mundane detail: methodological choices. 

APS Fellows Elected to SEP

In addition, an APS Rising Star receives the society’s Early Investigator Award.

Privacy Overview

Facilitating Complex Thinking

Problem-Solving

Somewhat less open-ended than creative thinking is  problem-solving , the analysis and solution of tasks or situations that are complex or ambiguous and that pose difficulties or obstacles of some kind (Mayer & Wittrock, 2006). Problem-solving is needed, for example, when a physician analyzes a chest X-ray: a photograph of the chest is far from clear and requires skill, experience, and resourcefulness to decide which foggy-looking blobs to ignore, and which to interpret as real physical structures (and therefore real medical concerns). Problem-solving is also needed when a grocery store manager has to decide how to improve the sales of a product: should she put it on sale at a lower price, or increase publicity for it, or both? Will these actions actually increase sales enough to pay for their costs?

PROBLEM-SOLVING IN THE CLASSROOM

Problem-solving happens in classrooms when teachers present tasks or challenges that are deliberately complex and for which finding a solution is not straightforward or obvious. The responses of students to such problems, as well as the strategies for assisting them, show the key features of problem-solving. Consider this example and students’ responses to it. We have numbered and named the paragraphs to make it easier to comment about them individually:

Scene #1: A problem to be solved

A teacher gave these instructions: “Can you connect all of the dots below using only  four  straight lines?” She drew the following display on the chalkboard:

The problem itself and the procedure for solving it seemed very clear: simply experiment with different arrangements of four lines. But two volunteers tried doing it at the board, but were unsuccessful. Several others worked at it at their seats, but also without success.

Scene #2: Coaxing students to re-frame the problem

When no one seemed to be getting it, the teacher asked, “Think about how you’ve set up the problem in your mind—about what you believe the problem is about. For instance, have you made any assumptions about how long the lines ought to be? Don’t stay stuck on one approach if it’s not working!”

Scene #3: Alicia abandons a fixed response

After the teacher said this, Alicia indeed continued to think about how she saw the problem. “The lines need to be no longer than the distance across the square,” she said to herself. So she tried several more solutions, but none of them worked either.

The teacher walked by Alicia’s desk and saw what Alicia was doing. She repeated her earlier comment: “Have you assumed anything about how long the lines ought to be?”

Alicia stared at the teacher blankly, but then smiled and said, “Hmm! You didn’t actually  say  that the lines could be no longer than the matrix! Why not make them longer?” So she experimented again using oversized lines and soon discovered a solution:

Scene #4: Willem’s and Rachel’s alternative strategies

Meanwhile, Willem worked on the problem. As it happened, Willem loved puzzles of all kinds and had ample experience with them. He had not, however, seen this particular problem. “It  must  be a trick,” he said to himself because he knew from experience that problems posed in this way often were not what they first appeared to be. He mused to himself: “Think outside the box, they always tell you. . .” And  that  was just the hint he needed: he drew lines outside the box by making them longer than the matrix and soon came up with this solution:

When Rachel went to work, she took one look at the problem and knew the answer immediately: she had seen this problem before, though she could not remember where. She had also seen other drawing-related puzzles and knew that their solution always depended on making the lines longer, shorter, or differently angled than first expected. After staring at the dots briefly, she drew a solution faster than Alicia or even Willem. Her solution looked exactly like Willem’s.

This story illustrates two common features of problem-solving: the effect of degree of structure or constraint on problem-solving, and the effect of mental obstacles to solving problems. The next sections discuss each of these features and then look at common techniques for solving problems.

The Effect of Constraints: Well-Structured Versus Ill-Structured Problems

Problems vary in how much information they provide for solving a problem, as well as in how many rules or procedures are needed for a solution. A  well-structured problem  provides much of the information needed and can in principle be solved using relatively few clearly understood rules. Classic examples are the word problems often taught in math lessons or classes: everything you need to know is contained within the stated problem and the solution procedures are relatively clear and precise. An  ill-structured problem  has the converse qualities: the information is not necessarily within the problem, solution procedures are potentially quite numerous, and multiple solutions are likely (Voss, 2006). Extreme examples are problems like “How can the world achieve lasting peace?” or “How can teachers ensure that students learn?”

By these definitions, the nine-dot problem is relatively well-structured—though not completely. Most of the information needed for a solution is provided in Scene #1: there are nine dots shown and instructions given to draw four lines. But not  all  necessary information was given: students needed to consider lines that were longer than implied in the original statement of the problem. Students had to “think outside the box,” as Willem said—in this case, literally.

When a problem is well-structured, so are its solution procedures likely to be as well. A well-defined procedure for solving a particular kind of problem is often called an  algorithm ; examples are the procedures for multiplying or dividing two numbers or the instructions for using a computer (Leiserson, et al., 2001). Algorithms are only effective when a problem is very well-structured and there is no question about whether the algorithm is an appropriate choice for the problem. In that situation, it pretty much guarantees a correct solution. They do not work well, however, with ill-structured problems, where they are ambiguities and questions about how to proceed or even about precisely  what  the problem is about. In those cases, it is more effective to use  heuristics , which are general strategies—“rules of thumb,” so to speak—that do not always work but often do, or that provide at least partial solutions. When beginning research for a term paper, for example, a useful heuristic is to scan the library catalog for titles that look relevant. There is no guarantee that this strategy will yield the books most needed for the paper, but the strategy works enough of the time to make it worth trying.

In the nine-dot problem, most students began in Scene #1 with a simple algorithm that can be stated like this: “Draw one line, then draw another, and another, and another.” Unfortunately, this simple procedure did not produce a solution, so they had to find other strategies for a solution. Three alternatives are described in Scenes #3 (for Alicia) and 4 (for Willem and Rachel). Of these, Willem’s response resembled a heuristic the most: he knew from experience that a good  general  strategy that  often  worked for such problems was to suspect deception or trick in how the problem was originally stated. So he set out to question what the teacher had meant by the word  line  and came up with an acceptable solution as a result.

Common Obstacles to Solving Problems

The example also illustrates two common problems that sometimes happen during problem-solving. One of these is  functional fixedness : a tendency to regard the  functions  of objects and ideas as  fixed  (German & Barrett, 2005). Over time, we get so used to one particular purpose for an object that we overlook other uses. We may think of a dictionary, for example, as necessarily something to verify spellings and definitions, but it also can function as a gift, a doorstop, or a footstool. For students working on the nine-dot matrix described in the last section, the notion of “drawing” a line was also initially fixed; they assumed it to be connecting dots but not extending lines beyond the dots. Functional fixedness sometimes is also called  response set , the tendency for a person to frame or think about each problem in a series in the same way as the previous problem, even when doing so is not appropriate for later problems. In the example of the nine-dot matrix described above, students often tried one solution after another, but each solution was constrained by a set response not  to extend any line beyond the matrix.

Functional fixedness and the response set are obstacles in  problem representation , the way that a person understands and organizes information provided in a problem. If information is misunderstood or used inappropriately, then mistakes are likely—if indeed the problem can be solved at all. With the nine-dot matrix problem, for example, construing the instruction to draw four lines as meaning “draw four lines entirely within the matrix” means that the problem simply could not be solved. For another, consider this problem: “The number of water lilies on a lake doubles each day. Each water lily covers exactly one square foot. If it takes 100 days for the lilies to cover the lake exactly, how many days does it take for the lilies to cover exactly half of the lake?” If you think that the size of the lilies affects the solution to this problem, you have not represented the problem correctly. Information about lily size is  not  relevant to the solution and only serves to distract from the truly crucial information, the fact that the lilies  double  their coverage each day. (The answer, incidentally, is that the lake is half covered in 99 days; can you think why?)

Strategies to Assist Problem-Solving

Just as there are cognitive obstacles to problem-solving, there are also general strategies that help the process be successful, regardless of the specific content of a problem (Thagard, 2005). One helpful strategy is  problem analysis —identifying the parts of the problem and working on each part separately. Analysis is especially useful when a problem is ill-structured. Consider this problem, for example: “Devise a plan to improve bicycle transportation in the city.” Solving this problem is easier if you identify its parts or component subproblems, such as (1) installing bicycle lanes on busy streets, (2) educating cyclists and motorists to ride safely, (3) fixing potholes on streets used by cyclists, and (4) revising traffic laws that interfere with cycling. Each separate subproblem is more manageable than the original, general problem. The solution of each subproblem contributes to the solution of the whole, though of course is not equivalent to a whole solution.

Another helpful strategy is  working backward   from  a final solution to the originally stated problem. This approach is especially helpful when a problem is well-structured but also has elements that are distracting or misleading when approached in a forward, normal direction. The water lily problem described above is a good example: starting with the day when  all  the lake is covered (Day 100), ask what day would it, therefore, be half-covered (by the terms of the problem, it would have to be the day before, or Day 99). Working backward, in this case, encourages reframing the extra information in the problem (i. e. the size of each water lily) as merely distracting, not as crucial to a solution.

A third helpful strategy is  analogical thinking —using knowledge or experiences with similar features or structures to help solve the problem at hand (Bassok, 2003). In devising a plan to improve bicycling in the city, for example, an analogy of cars with bicycles is helpful in thinking of solutions: improving conditions for both vehicles requires many of the same measures (improving the roadways, educating drivers). Even solving simpler, more basic problems is helped by considering analogies. A first-grade student can partially decode unfamiliar printed words by analogy to words he or she has learned already. If the child cannot yet read the word screen , for example, he can note that part of this word looks similar to words he may already know, such as  seen  or  green,  and from this observation derive a clue about how to read the word  screen . Teachers can assist this process, as you might expect, by suggesting reasonable, helpful analogies for students to consider.

Video 5.4.1. Problem Solving explains strategies used for solving problems.

Many systems for problem-solving can be taught to learners (Pressley, 1995). There are problem-solving strategies to improve general problem solving (Burkell, Schneider, & Pressley, 1990; Mayer, 1987; Sternberg, 1988), scientific thinking (Kuhn, 1989), mathematical problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1989), and writing during the elementary years (Harris & Graham, 1992a) and during adolescence (Applebee, 1984; Langer & Applebee, 1987).

A problem-solving system that can be used in a variety of curriculum areas and with a variety of problems is called IDEAL (Bransford & Steen, 1984). IDEAL involves five stages of problem-solving:

• Identify the problem. Learners must know what the problem is before they can solve it. During this stage of problem-solving, learners ask themselves whether they understand what the problem is and whether they have stated it clearly.
• Define terms. During this stage, learners check whether they understand what each word in the problem statement means.
• Explore strategies. At this stage, learners compile relevant information and try out strategies to solve the problem. This can involve drawing diagrams, working backward to solve a mathematical or reading comprehension problem, or breaking complex problems into manageable units.
• Act on the strategy. Once learners have explored a variety of strategies, they select one and now use it.
• Look at the effects. During the final stage of the IDEAL method, learners ask themselves whether they have come up with an acceptable solution.

Video 5.4.2. The Problem Solving Model explains the process involved in solving problems. These steps can be explicitly taught to enhance problem-solving skills.

Candela Citations

• Problem-Solving. Authored by : Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose. Provided by : Hudson Valley Community College. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/edpsy/chapter/problemsolving. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary Sutton. Provided by : The Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationalpsychology. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Bohlin. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Problem Solving. Authored by : Carole Yue. Provided by : Khan Academy. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/J3GGx9wy07w. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• The Problem Solving Model. Provided by : Gregg Learning. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/CDk_BD1LXiI. License : All Rights Reserved

Educational Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

IResearchNet

Problem Solving

Problem solving, a fundamental cognitive process deeply rooted in psychology, plays a pivotal role in various aspects of human existence, especially within educational contexts. This article delves into the nature of problem solving, exploring its theoretical underpinnings, the cognitive and psychological processes that underlie it, and the application of problem-solving skills within educational settings and the broader real world. With a focus on both theory and practice, this article underscores the significance of cultivating problem-solving abilities as a cornerstone of cognitive development and innovation, shedding light on its applications in fields ranging from education to clinical psychology and beyond, thereby paving the way for future research and intervention in this critical domain of human cognition.

Introduction

Problem solving, a quintessential cognitive process deeply embedded in the domains of psychology and education, serves as a linchpin for human intellectual development and adaptation to the ever-evolving challenges of the world. The fundamental capacity to identify, analyze, and surmount obstacles is intrinsic to human nature and has been a subject of profound interest for psychologists, educators, and researchers alike. This article aims to provide a comprehensive exploration of problem solving, investigating its theoretical foundations, cognitive intricacies, and practical applications in educational contexts. With a clear understanding of its multifaceted nature, we will elucidate the pivotal role that problem solving plays in enhancing learning, fostering creativity, and promoting cognitive growth, setting the stage for a detailed examination of its significance in both psychology and education. In the continuum of psychological research and educational practice, problem solving stands as a cornerstone, enabling individuals to navigate the complexities of their world. This article’s thesis asserts that problem solving is not merely a cognitive skill but a dynamic process with profound implications for intellectual growth and application in diverse real-world contexts.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, the nature of problem solving.

Problem solving, within the realm of psychology, refers to the cognitive process through which individuals identify, analyze, and resolve challenges or obstacles to achieve a desired goal. It encompasses a range of mental activities, such as perception, memory, reasoning, and decision-making, aimed at devising effective solutions in the face of uncertainty or complexity.

Problem solving as a subject of inquiry has drawn from various theoretical perspectives, each offering unique insights into its nature. Among the seminal theories, Gestalt psychology has highlighted the role of insight and restructuring in problem solving, emphasizing that individuals often reorganize their mental representations to attain solutions. Information processing theories, inspired by computer models, emphasize the systematic and step-by-step nature of problem solving, likening it to information retrieval and manipulation. Furthermore, cognitive psychology has provided a comprehensive framework for understanding problem solving by examining the underlying cognitive processes involved, such as attention, memory, and decision-making. These theoretical foundations collectively offer a richer comprehension of how humans engage in and approach problem-solving tasks.

Problem solving is not a monolithic process but a series of interrelated stages that individuals progress through. These stages are integral to the overall problem-solving process, and they include:

• Problem Representation: At the outset, individuals must clearly define and represent the problem they face. This involves grasping the nature of the problem, identifying its constraints, and understanding the relationships between various elements.
• Goal Setting: Setting a clear and attainable goal is essential for effective problem solving. This step involves specifying the desired outcome or solution and establishing criteria for success.
• Solution Generation: In this stage, individuals generate potential solutions to the problem. This often involves brainstorming, creative thinking, and the exploration of different strategies to overcome the obstacles presented by the problem.
• Solution Evaluation: After generating potential solutions, individuals must evaluate these alternatives to determine their feasibility and effectiveness. This involves comparing solutions, considering potential consequences, and making choices based on the criteria established in the goal-setting phase.

These components collectively form the roadmap for navigating the terrain of problem solving and provide a structured approach to addressing challenges effectively. Understanding these stages is crucial for both researchers studying problem solving and educators aiming to foster problem-solving skills in learners.

Cognitive and Psychological Aspects of Problem Solving

Problem solving is intricately tied to a range of cognitive processes, each contributing to the effectiveness of the problem-solving endeavor.

• Perception: Perception serves as the initial gateway in problem solving. It involves the gathering and interpretation of sensory information from the environment. Effective perception allows individuals to identify relevant cues and patterns within a problem, aiding in problem representation and understanding.
• Memory: Memory is crucial in problem solving as it enables the retrieval of relevant information from past experiences, learned strategies, and knowledge. Working memory, in particular, helps individuals maintain and manipulate information while navigating through the various stages of problem solving.
• Reasoning: Reasoning encompasses logical and critical thinking processes that guide the generation and evaluation of potential solutions. Deductive and inductive reasoning, as well as analogical reasoning, play vital roles in identifying relationships and formulating hypotheses.

While problem solving is a universal cognitive function, individuals differ in their problem-solving skills due to various factors.

• Intelligence: Intelligence, as measured by IQ or related assessments, significantly influences problem-solving abilities. Higher levels of intelligence are often associated with better problem-solving performance, as individuals with greater cognitive resources can process information more efficiently and effectively.
• Creativity: Creativity is a crucial factor in problem solving, especially in situations that require innovative solutions. Creative individuals tend to approach problems with fresh perspectives, making novel connections and generating unconventional solutions.
• Expertise: Expertise in a specific domain enhances problem-solving abilities within that domain. Experts possess a wealth of knowledge and experience, allowing them to recognize patterns and solutions more readily. However, expertise can sometimes lead to domain-specific biases or difficulties in adapting to new problem types.

Despite the cognitive processes and individual differences that contribute to effective problem solving, individuals often encounter barriers that impede their progress. Recognizing and overcoming these barriers is crucial for successful problem solving.

• Functional Fixedness: Functional fixedness is a cognitive bias that limits problem solving by causing individuals to perceive objects or concepts only in their traditional or “fixed” roles. Overcoming functional fixedness requires the ability to see alternative uses and functions for objects or ideas.
• Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. This bias can hinder objective evaluation of potential solutions, as individuals may favor information that aligns with their initial perspectives.
• Mental Sets: Mental sets are cognitive frameworks or problem-solving strategies that individuals habitually use. While mental sets can be helpful in certain contexts, they can also limit creativity and flexibility when faced with new problems. Recognizing and breaking out of mental sets is essential for overcoming this barrier.

Understanding these cognitive processes, individual differences, and common obstacles provides valuable insights into the intricacies of problem solving and offers a foundation for improving problem-solving skills and strategies in both educational and practical settings.

Problem Solving in Educational Settings

Problem solving holds a central position in educational psychology, as it is a fundamental skill that empowers students to navigate the complexities of the learning process and prepares them for real-world challenges. It goes beyond rote memorization and standardized testing, allowing students to apply critical thinking, creativity, and analytical skills to authentic problems. Problem-solving tasks in educational settings range from solving mathematical equations to tackling complex issues in subjects like science, history, and literature. These tasks not only bolster subject-specific knowledge but also cultivate transferable skills that extend beyond the classroom.

Problem-solving skills offer numerous advantages to both educators and students. For teachers, integrating problem-solving tasks into the curriculum allows for more engaging and dynamic instruction, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Additionally, it provides educators with insights into students’ thought processes and areas where additional support may be needed. Students, on the other hand, benefit from the development of critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and creativity. These skills are transferable to various life situations, enhancing students’ abilities to solve complex real-world problems and adapt to a rapidly changing society.

Teaching problem-solving skills is a dynamic process that requires effective pedagogical approaches. In K-12 education, educators often use methods such as the problem-based learning (PBL) approach, where students work on open-ended, real-world problems, fostering self-directed learning and collaboration. Higher education institutions, on the other hand, employ strategies like case-based learning, simulations, and design thinking to promote problem solving within specialized disciplines. Additionally, educators use scaffolding techniques to provide support and guidance as students develop their problem-solving abilities. In both K-12 and higher education, a key component is metacognition, which helps students become aware of their thought processes and adapt their problem-solving strategies as needed.

Assessing problem-solving abilities in educational settings involves a combination of formative and summative assessments. Formative assessments, including classroom discussions, peer evaluations, and self-assessments, provide ongoing feedback and opportunities for improvement. Summative assessments may include standardized tests designed to evaluate problem-solving skills within a particular subject area. Performance-based assessments, such as essays, projects, and presentations, offer a holistic view of students’ problem-solving capabilities. Rubrics and scoring guides are often used to ensure consistency in assessment, allowing educators to measure not only the correctness of answers but also the quality of the problem-solving process. The evolving field of educational technology has also introduced computer-based simulations and adaptive learning platforms, enabling precise measurement and tailored feedback on students’ problem-solving performance.

Understanding the pivotal role of problem solving in educational psychology, the diverse pedagogical strategies for teaching it, and the methods for assessing and measuring problem-solving abilities equips educators and students with the tools necessary to thrive in educational environments and beyond. Problem solving remains a cornerstone of 21st-century education, preparing students to meet the complex challenges of a rapidly changing world.

Applications and Practical Implications

Problem solving is not confined to the classroom; it extends its influence to various real-world contexts, showcasing its relevance and impact. In business, problem solving is the driving force behind product development, process improvement, and conflict resolution. For instance, companies often use problem-solving methodologies like Six Sigma to identify and rectify issues in manufacturing. In healthcare, medical professionals employ problem-solving skills to diagnose complex illnesses and devise treatment plans. Additionally, technology advancements frequently stem from creative problem solving, as engineers and developers tackle challenges in software, hardware, and systems design. Real-world problem solving transcends specific domains, as individuals in diverse fields address multifaceted issues by drawing upon their cognitive abilities and creative problem-solving strategies.

Clinical psychology recognizes the profound therapeutic potential of problem-solving techniques. Problem-solving therapy (PST) is an evidence-based approach that focuses on helping individuals develop effective strategies for coping with emotional and interpersonal challenges. PST equips individuals with the skills to define problems, set realistic goals, generate solutions, and evaluate their effectiveness. This approach has shown efficacy in treating conditions like depression, anxiety, and stress, emphasizing the role of problem-solving abilities in enhancing emotional well-being. Furthermore, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) incorporates problem-solving elements to help individuals challenge and modify dysfunctional thought patterns, reinforcing the importance of cognitive processes in addressing psychological distress.

Problem solving is the bedrock of innovation and creativity in various fields. Innovators and creative thinkers use problem-solving skills to identify unmet needs, devise novel solutions, and overcome obstacles. Design thinking, a problem-solving approach, is instrumental in product design, architecture, and user experience design, fostering innovative solutions grounded in human needs. Moreover, creative industries like art, literature, and music rely on problem-solving abilities to transcend conventional boundaries and produce groundbreaking works. By exploring alternative perspectives, making connections, and persistently seeking solutions, creative individuals harness problem-solving processes to ignite innovation and drive progress in all facets of human endeavor.

Understanding the practical applications of problem solving in business, healthcare, technology, and its therapeutic significance in clinical psychology, as well as its indispensable role in nurturing innovation and creativity, underscores its universal value. Problem solving is not only a cognitive skill but also a dynamic force that shapes and improves the world we inhabit, enhancing the quality of life and promoting progress and discovery.

In summary, problem solving stands as an indispensable cornerstone within the domains of psychology and education. This article has explored the multifaceted nature of problem solving, from its theoretical foundations rooted in Gestalt psychology, information processing theories, and cognitive psychology to its integral components of problem representation, goal setting, solution generation, and solution evaluation. It has delved into the cognitive processes underpinning effective problem solving, including perception, memory, and reasoning, as well as the impact of individual differences such as intelligence, creativity, and expertise. Common barriers to problem solving, including functional fixedness, confirmation bias, and mental sets, have been examined in-depth.

The significance of problem solving in educational settings was elucidated, underscoring its pivotal role in fostering critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability. Pedagogical approaches and assessment methods were discussed, providing educators with insights into effective strategies for teaching and evaluating problem-solving skills in K-12 and higher education.

Furthermore, the practical implications of problem solving were demonstrated in the real world, where it serves as the driving force behind advancements in business, healthcare, and technology. In clinical psychology, problem-solving therapies offer effective interventions for emotional and psychological well-being. The symbiotic relationship between problem solving and innovation and creativity was explored, highlighting the role of this cognitive process in pushing the boundaries of human accomplishment.

As we conclude, it is evident that problem solving is not merely a skill but a dynamic process with profound implications. It enables individuals to navigate the complexities of their environment, fostering intellectual growth, adaptability, and innovation. Future research in the field of problem solving should continue to explore the intricate cognitive processes involved, individual differences that influence problem-solving abilities, and innovative teaching methods in educational settings. In practice, educators and clinicians should continue to incorporate problem-solving strategies to empower individuals with the tools necessary for success in education, personal development, and the ever-evolving challenges of the real world. Problem solving remains a steadfast ally in the pursuit of knowledge, progress, and the enhancement of human potential.

References:

• Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications. W. H. Freeman.
• Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). Academic Press.
• Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113.
• Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306-355.
• Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 6.
• Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relation to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2(2), 89-116.
• Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54(6), i-95.
• Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. W. H. Freeman.
• Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104). Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
• Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd ed.). Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press.

Identifying Barriers to Problem-Solving in Psychology

Problem-solving is a key aspect of psychology, essential for understanding and overcoming challenges in our daily lives. There are common barriers that can hinder our ability to effectively solve problems. From mental blocks to confirmation bias, these obstacles can impede our progress.

In this article, we will explore the various barriers to problem-solving in psychology, as well as strategies to overcome them. By addressing these challenges head-on, we can unlock the benefits of improved problem-solving skills and mental agility.

• Identifying and overcoming barriers to problem-solving in psychology can lead to more effective and efficient solutions.
• Some common barriers include mental blocks, confirmation bias, and functional fixedness, which can all limit critical thinking and creativity.
• Mindfulness techniques, seeking different perspectives, and collaborating with others can help overcome these barriers and lead to more successful problem-solving.
• 1 What Is Problem-Solving in Psychology?
• 2 Why Is Problem-Solving Important in Psychology?
• 3.1 Mental Blocks
• 3.2 Confirmation Bias
• 3.3 Functional Fixedness
• 3.4 Lack of Creativity
• 3.5 Emotional Barriers
• 3.6 Cultural Influences
• 4.1 Divergent Thinking
• 4.2 Mindfulness Techniques
• 4.3 Seeking Different Perspectives
• 4.4 Challenging Assumptions
• 4.5 Collaborating with Others
• 5 What Are the Benefits of Overcoming These Barriers?
• 6 Frequently Asked Questions

What Is Problem-Solving in Psychology?

Problem-solving in psychology refers to the cognitive processes through which individuals identify and overcome obstacles or challenges to reach a desired goal, drawing on various mental processes and strategies.

In the realm of cognitive psychology, problem-solving is a key area of study that delves into how people use algorithms and heuristics to tackle complex issues. Algorithms are systematic step-by-step procedures that guarantee a solution, whereas heuristics are mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that provide efficient solutions, albeit without certainty. Understanding these mental processes is crucial in exploring how individuals approach different types of problems and make decisions based on their problem-solving strategies.

Why Is Problem-Solving Important in Psychology?

Problem-solving holds significant importance in psychology as it facilitates the discovery of new insights, enhances understanding of complex issues, and fosters effective actions based on informed decisions.

Assumptions play a crucial role in problem-solving processes, influencing how individuals perceive and approach challenges. By challenging these assumptions, individuals can break through mental barriers and explore creative solutions.

Functional fixedness, a cognitive bias where individuals restrict the use of objects to their traditional functions, can hinder problem-solving. Overcoming functional fixedness involves reevaluating the purpose of objects, leading to innovative problem-solving strategies.

Through problem-solving, psychologists uncover underlying patterns in behavior, delve into subconscious motivations, and offer practical interventions to improve mental well-being.

What Are the Common Barriers to Problem-Solving in Psychology?

In psychology, common barriers to problem-solving include mental blocks , confirmation bias , functional fixedness, lack of creativity, emotional barriers, and cultural influences that hinder the application of knowledge and resources to overcome challenges.

Mental blocks refer to the difficulty in generating new ideas or solutions due to preconceived notions or past experiences. Confirmation bias, on the other hand, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or prioritize information that confirms existing beliefs or hypotheses, while disregarding opposing evidence.

Functional fixedness limits problem-solving by constraining individuals to view objects or concepts in their traditional uses, inhibiting creative approaches. Lack of creativity impedes the ability to think outside the box and consider unconventional solutions.

Emotional barriers such as fear, stress, or anxiety can halt progress by clouding judgment and hindering clear decision-making. Cultural influences may introduce unique perspectives or expectations that clash with effective problem-solving strategies, complicating the resolution process.

Mental Blocks

Mental blocks in problem-solving occur when individuals struggle to consider all relevant information, fall into a fixed mental set, or become fixated on irrelevant details, hindering progress and creative solutions.

For instance, irrelevant information can lead to mental blocks by distracting individuals from focusing on the key elements required to solve a problem effectively. This could involve getting caught up in minor details that have no real impact on the overall solution. A fixed mental set, formed by previous experiences or patterns, can limit one’s ability to approach a problem from new perspectives, restricting innovative thinking.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias, a common barrier in problem-solving, leads individuals to seek information that confirms their existing knowledge or assumptions, potentially overlooking contradictory data and hindering objective analysis.

This cognitive bias affects decision-making and problem-solving processes by creating a tendency to favor information that aligns with one’s beliefs, rather than considering all perspectives.

• One effective method to mitigate confirmation bias is by actively challenging assumptions through critical thinking.
• By questioning the validity of existing beliefs and seeking out diverse viewpoints, individuals can counteract the tendency to only consider information that confirms their preconceptions.
• Another strategy is to promote a culture of open-mindedness and encourage constructive debate within teams to foster a more comprehensive evaluation of data.

Functional Fixedness

Functional fixedness restricts problem-solving by limiting individuals to conventional uses of objects, impeding the discovery of innovative solutions and hindering the application of insightful approaches to challenges.

For instance, when faced with a task that requires a candle to be mounted on a wall to provide lighting, someone bound by functional fixedness may struggle to see the potential solution of using the candle wax as an adhesive instead of solely perceiving the candle’s purpose as a light source.

This mental rigidity often leads individuals to overlook unconventional or creative methods, which can stifle their ability to find effective problem-solving strategies.

To combat this cognitive limitation, fostering divergent thinking, encouraging experimentation, and promoting flexibility in approaching tasks can help individuals break free from functional fixedness and unlock their creativity.

Lack of Creativity

A lack of creativity poses a significant barrier to problem-solving, limiting the potential for improvement and hindering flexible thinking required to generate novel solutions and address complex challenges.

When individuals are unable to think outside the box and explore unconventional approaches, they may find themselves stuck in repetitive patterns without breakthroughs.

Flexibility is key to overcoming this hurdle, allowing individuals to adapt their perspectives, pivot when necessary, and consider multiple viewpoints to arrive at innovative solutions.

Encouraging a culture that embraces experimentation, values diverse ideas, and fosters an environment of continuous learning can fuel creativity and push problem-solving capabilities to new heights.

Emotional Barriers

Emotional barriers, such as fear of failure, can impede problem-solving by creating anxiety, reducing risk-taking behavior, and hindering effective collaboration with others, limiting the exploration of innovative solutions.

When individuals are held back by the fear of failure, it often stems from a deep-seated worry about making mistakes or being judged negatively. This fear can lead to hesitation in decision-making processes and reluctance to explore unconventional approaches, ultimately hindering the ability to discover creative solutions. To overcome this obstacle, it is essential to cultivate a positive emotional environment that fosters trust, resilience, and open communication among team members. Encouraging a mindset that embraces failure as a stepping stone to success can enable individuals to take risks, learn from setbacks, and collaborate effectively to overcome challenges.

Cultural Influences

Cultural influences can act as barriers to problem-solving by imposing rigid norms, limiting flexibility in thinking, and hindering effective communication and collaboration among diverse individuals with varying perspectives.

When individuals from different cultural backgrounds come together to solve problems, the ingrained values and beliefs they hold can shape their approaches and methods.

For example, in some cultures, decisiveness and quick decision-making are highly valued, while in others, a consensus-building process is preferred.

Understanding and recognizing these differences is crucial for navigating through the cultural barriers that might arise during collaborative problem-solving.

How Can These Barriers Be Overcome?

These barriers to problem-solving in psychology can be overcome through various strategies such as divergent thinking, mindfulness techniques, seeking different perspectives, challenging assumptions, and collaborating with others to leverage diverse insights and foster critical thinking.

Engaging in divergent thinking , which involves generating multiple solutions or viewpoints for a single issue, can help break away from conventional problem-solving methods. By encouraging a free flow of ideas without immediate judgment, individuals can explore innovative paths that may lead to breakthrough solutions. Actively seeking diverse perspectives from individuals with varied backgrounds, experiences, and expertise can offer fresh insights that challenge existing assumptions and broaden the problem-solving scope. This diversity of viewpoints can spark creativity and unconventional approaches that enhance problem-solving outcomes.

Divergent Thinking

Divergent thinking enhances problem-solving by encouraging creative exploration of multiple solutions, breaking habitual thought patterns, and fostering flexibility in generating innovative ideas to address challenges.

When individuals engage in divergent thinking, they open up their minds to various possibilities and perspectives. Instead of being constrained by conventional norms, a person might ideate freely without limitations. This leads to out-of-the-box solutions that can revolutionize how problems are approached. Divergent thinking sparks creativity by allowing unconventional ideas to surface and flourish.

For example, imagine a team tasked with redesigning a city park. Instead of sticking to traditional layouts, they might brainstorm wild concepts like turning the park into a futuristic playground, a pop-up art gallery space, or a wildlife sanctuary. Such diverse ideas stem from divergent thinking and push boundaries beyond the ordinary.

Mindfulness Techniques

Mindfulness techniques can aid problem-solving by promoting present-moment awareness, reducing cognitive biases, and fostering a habit of continuous learning that enhances adaptability and open-mindedness in addressing challenges.

Engaging in regular mindfulness practices encourages individuals to stay grounded in the current moment, allowing them to detach from preconceived notions and biases that could cloud judgment. By cultivating a non-judgmental attitude towards thoughts and emotions, people develop the capacity to observe situations from a neutral perspective, facilitating clearer decision-making processes. Mindfulness techniques facilitate the development of a growth mindset, where one acknowledges mistakes as opportunities for learning and improvement rather than failures.

Seeking Different Perspectives

Seeking different perspectives in problem-solving involves tapping into diverse resources, engaging in effective communication, and considering alternative viewpoints to broaden understanding and identify innovative solutions to complex issues.

Collaboration among individuals with various backgrounds and experiences can offer fresh insights and approaches to tackling challenges. By fostering an environment where all voices are valued and heard, teams can leverage the collective wisdom and creativity present in diverse perspectives. For example, in the tech industry, companies like Google encourage cross-functional teams to work together, harnessing diverse skill sets to develop groundbreaking technologies.

To incorporate diverse viewpoints, one can implement brainstorming sessions that involve individuals from different departments or disciplines to encourage out-of-the-box thinking. Another effective method is to conduct surveys or focus groups to gather input from a wide range of stakeholders and ensure inclusivity in decision-making processes.

Challenging Assumptions

Challenging assumptions is a key strategy in problem-solving, as it prompts individuals to critically evaluate preconceived notions, gain new insights, and expand their knowledge base to approach challenges from fresh perspectives.

By questioning established beliefs or ways of thinking, individuals open the door to innovative solutions and original perspectives. Stepping outside the boundaries of conventional wisdom enables problem solvers to see beyond limitations and explore uncharted territories. This process not only fosters creativity but also encourages a culture of continuous improvement where learning thrives. Daring to challenge assumptions can unveil hidden opportunities and untapped potential in problem-solving scenarios, leading to breakthroughs and advancements that were previously overlooked.

• One effective technique to challenge assumptions is through brainstorming sessions that encourage participants to voice unconventional ideas without judgment.
• Additionally, adopting a beginner’s mindset can help in questioning assumptions, as newcomers often bring a fresh perspective unburdened by past biases.

Collaborating with Others

Collaborating with others in problem-solving fosters flexibility, encourages open communication, and leverages collective intelligence to navigate complex challenges, drawing on diverse perspectives and expertise to generate innovative solutions.

Effective collaboration enables individuals to combine strengths and talents, pooling resources to tackle problems that may seem insurmountable when approached individually. By working together, team members can break down barriers and silos that often hinder progress, leading to more efficient problem-solving processes and better outcomes.

Collaboration also promotes a sense of shared purpose and increases overall engagement, as team members feel valued and enableed to contribute their unique perspectives. To foster successful collaboration, it is crucial to establish clear goals, roles, and communication channels, ensuring that everyone is aligned towards a common objective.

What Are the Benefits of Overcoming These Barriers?

Overcoming the barriers to problem-solving in psychology leads to significant benefits such as improved critical thinking skills, enhanced knowledge acquisition, and the ability to address complex issues with greater creativity and adaptability.

By mastering the art of problem-solving, individuals in the field of psychology can also cultivate resilience and perseverance, two essential traits that contribute to personal growth and success.

When confronting and overcoming cognitive obstacles, individuals develop a deeper understanding of their own cognitive processes and behavioral patterns, enabling them to make informed decisions and overcome challenges more effectively.

Continuous learning and adaptability play a pivotal role in problem-solving, allowing psychologists to stay updated with the latest research, techniques, and methodologies that enhance their problem-solving capabilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

Similar posts.

Digging Deeper: The Role of Inferential Statistics in Psychology

The article was last updated by Nicholas Reed on February 9, 2024. Have you ever wondered how psychologists are able to draw conclusions about human…

Illustrating Extinction in Psychology with Real-life Examples

The article was last updated by Dr. Emily Tan on February 9, 2024. Have you ever wondered how behaviors are unlearned in psychology? Extinction is…

Exploring Stress Tests in Evolutionary Psychology

The article was last updated by Ethan Clarke on February 8, 2024. Have you ever wondered why humans behave the way they do? Evolutionary psychology…

The Significance of Validity in Psychology Research

The article was last updated by Rachel Liu on February 9, 2024. Validity is a crucial aspect of psychology research, ensuring that the results accurately…

Step-by-Step Guide to Publishing Your Psychology Research

The article was last updated by Dr. Henry Foster on February 5, 2024. Are you a psychology student or researcher looking to publish your research?…

Understanding Baseline in Psychology

The article was last updated by Lena Nguyen on February 4, 2024. Baseline in psychology is a crucial concept that serves as a reference point…

Psychological Steps Involved in Problem Solving

A mental process or a phenomenon dedicated towards solving problems by discovering and analyzing the problem is referred to as problem-solving. It is a process dedicated to finding not just any solution, but the best solution to resolve any problems. There is no such thing as one best way to solve every kind of problem, since there are unique problems depending upon the situation there are unique solutions too.

In psychology, problem solving doesn’t necessarily refer to solving psychological/mental issues of the brain. The process simply refers to solving every kind of problems in life in a proper manner. The idea of including the subject in psychology is because psychology deals with the overall mental process. And, tactfully using our thought process is what leads to the solution of any problems.

There are number of rigid psychological steps involved in problem solving, which is also referred as problem-solving cycle. The steps are in sequential order, and solving any problem requires following them one after another. But, we tend to avoid following this rigid set of steps, which is why it often requires us to go through the same steps over and over again until a satisfactory solution is reached.

Here are the steps involved in problem solving, approved by expert psychologists.

1. Identifying the Problem

Identifying the problem seems like the obvious first stem, but it’s not exactly as simple as it sounds. People might identify the wrong source of a problem, which will render the steps thus carried on useless.

For instance , let’s say you’re having trouble with your studies. identifying the root of your failure is your first priority. The problem here could be that you haven’t been allocating enough time for your studies, or you haven’t tried the right techniques. But, if you make an assumption that the problem here is the subject being too hard, you won’t be able to solve the problem.

2. Defining/Understanding the Problem

It’s vital to properly define the problem once it’s been identified. Only by defining the problem, further steps can be taken to solve it. While at it, you also need to take into consideration different perspectives to understand any problem; this will also help you look for solutions with different perspectives.

Now, following up with the previous example . Let’s say you have identified the problem as not being able to allocate enough time for your studies. You need to sort out the reason behind it. Have you just been procrastinating? Have you been too busy with work? You need to understand the whole problem and reasons behind it, which is the second step in problem solving.

3. Forming a Strategy

Developing a strategy is the next step to finding a solution. Each different situation will require formulating different strategies, also depending on individual’s unique preferences.

Now, you have identified and studied your problem. You can’t just simply jump into trying to solve it. You can’t just quit work and start studying. You need to draw up a strategy to manage your time properly. Allocate less time for not-so-important works, and add them to your study time. Your strategy should be well thought, so that in theory at least, you are able to manage enough time to study properly and not fail in the exams.

4. Organizing Information

Organizing the available information is another crucial step to the process. You need to consider

• What do you know about the problem?
• What do you not know about the problem?

Accuracy of the solution for your problem will depend on the amount of information available.

The hypothetical strategy you formulate isn’t the all of it either. You need to now contemplate on the information available on the subject matter. Use the aforementioned questions to find out more about the problem. Proper organization of the information will force you to revise your strategy and refine it for best results.

5. Allocating Resources

Time, money and other resources aren’t unlimited. Deciding how high the priority is to solve your problem will help you determine the resources you’ll be using in your course to find the solution. If the problem is important, you can allocate more resources to solving it. However, if the problem isn’t as important, it’s not worth the time and money you might spend on it if not for proper planning.

For instance , let’s consider a different scenario where your business deal is stuck, but it’s few thousand miles away. Now, you need to analyze the problem and the resources you can afford to expend to solve the particular problem. If the deal isn’t really in your favor, you could just try solving it over the phone, however, more important deals might require you to fly to the location in order to solve the issue.

6. Monitoring Progress

You need to document your progress as you are finding a solution. Don’t rely on your memory, no matter how good your memory is. Effective problem-solvers have been known to monitor their progress regularly. And, if they’re not making as much progress as they’re supposed to, they will reevaluate their approach or look for new strategies.

Problem solving isn’t an overnight feat. You can’t just have a body like that of Brad Pitt after a single session in the gym. It takes time and patience. Likewise, you need to work towards solving any problem every day until you finally achieve the results. Looking back at the previous example , if everything’s according to plan, you will be allocating more and more time for your studies until finally you are confident that you’re improving. One way to make sure that you’re on a right path to solving a problem is by keeping track of the progress. To solve the problem illustrated in the first example, you can take self-tests every week or two and track your progress.

7. Evaluating the Results

Your job still isn’t done even if you’ve reached a solution. You need to evaluate the solution to find out if it’s the best possible solution to the problem. The evaluation might be immediate or might take a while. For instance , answer to a math problem can be checked then and there, however solution to your yearly tax issue might not be possible to be evaluated right there.

• Take time to identify the possible sources of the problem. It’s better to spend a substantial amount of time on something right, than on something completely opposite.
• Ask yourself questions like What, Why, How to figure out the causes of the problem. Only then can you move forward on solving it.
• Carefully outline the methods to tackle the problem. There might be different solutions to a problem, record them all.
• Gather all information about the problem and the approaches. More, the merrier.
• From the outlined methods, choose the ones that are viable to approach. Try discarding the ones that have unseen consequences.
• Track your progress as you go.
• Evaluate the outcome of the progress.

What are other people reading?

Divergent Thinking

Convergent Thinking

Convergent Vs Divergent Thinking

What Can We Learn by Treating Perspective Taking as Problem Solving?

• Original Research
• Published: 02 August 2021
• Volume 44 , pages 359–387, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Tokiko Taylor 1 &
• Timothy L. Edwards   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1569-5656 1  

1018 Accesses

4 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Perspective taking has been studied extensively using a wide variety of experimental tasks. The theoretical constructs that are used to develop these tasks and interpret the results obtained from them, most notably theory of mind (ToM), have conceptual shortcomings from a behavior-analytic perspective. The behavioral approach to conceptualizing and studying this class of behavior is parsimonious and pragmatic, but the body of relevant research is currently small. The prominent relational frame theory (RFT) approach to derived perspective taking asserts that “deictic framing” is a core component of this class of behavior, but this proposal also appears to be conceptually problematic. We suggest that in many cases perspective taking is problem solving; when successful, both classes of behavior involve the emission of context-appropriate precurrent behavior that facilitates the appropriate response (i.e., the “solution”). Conceptualizing perspective taking in this way appears to have many advantages, which we explore herein.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Research

Patrik Aspers & Ugo Corte

What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias?

Ethical decision-making theory: an integrated approach.

Mark S. Schwartz

Data Availability

Not applicable

Skinner ( 1957 ) defined verbal behavior as behavior for which reinforcement is mediated by others whose behavior has specifically been conditioned to do so. Although some have found this definition unsatisfying (e.g., Hayes et al., 2021 ), we will apply it herein unless otherwise specified.

This conclusion is also based on a small difference in the outcomes between the two studies, and 5 of 22 apes (23%) failed to identify the correct location in the original study using ape-like stimuli. Therefore, these conclusions may also be demonstrative of the commonly observed bias in favor of ToM-based interpretations that we discussed previously.

Verbal behavior is defined within RFT as “the action of framing events relationally” (Hayes et al., 2001 , p. 43; see also Barnes-Holmes et al., 2000 ).

Artificial intelligence (AI) trained using a process that is analogous to operant conditioning can now outperform even the best human players, and training that is purely operant is more successful than training based on examples from human experts. This algorithm can also produce completely novel but successful “behavior” on the part of the AI. This is further evidence that “behavior reading” can account for even extremely complex examples of perspective taking (Labash et al., 2020 ; Silver et al., 2017 ).

Aichhorn, M., Perner, J., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W., & Ladurner, G. (2006). Do visual perspective tasks need theory of mind? Neuroimage, 30 (3), 1059–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.026 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Anderson, J. R., Montant, M., & Schmitt, D. (1996). Rhesus monkeys fail to use gaze direction as an experimenter-given cue in an object-choice task. Behavioural Processes, 37 (1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(95)00074-7 .

Anderson, J. R., Sallaberry, P., & Barbier, H. (1995). Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 49 (1), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80168-5 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Andrews, G., Halford, G. S., & Boyce, J. (2012). Conditional discrimination in young children: The roles of associative and relational processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112 (1), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.12.004 .

Andrews, G., Halford, G. S., Bunch, K. M., Bowden, D., & Jones, T. (2003). Theory of mind and relational complexity. Child Development, 74 (5), 1476–1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00618 .

Barbero-Rubio, A., López-López, J. C., Luciano, C., & Eisenbeck, N. (2016). Perspective-taking measured by implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP). The Psychological Record, 66 (2), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0166-3 .

Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cullinan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory and Skinner’s verbal behavior: A possible synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23 (1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392000 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., & Dymond, S. (2001). Self and self-directed rules. In D. Barnes-Holmes, S. C. Hayes., & R. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 119–139). Springer Science & Business Media.

Baron-Cohen, S. (1989). Perceptual role taking and protodeclarative pointing in autism. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7 (2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00793.x .

Baron-Cohen, S., Jolliffe, T., Mortimore, C., & Robertson, M. (1997). Another advanced test of theory of mind: Evidence from very high functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 38 (7), 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01599.x .

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind?”. Cognition, 21 (1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 .

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioural and intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4 (2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1986.tb01003.x .

Baron-Cohen, S., O'Riordan, M., Stone, V., Jones, R., & Plaisted, K. (1999). Recognition of faux pas by normally developing children and children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 29 (5), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023035012436 .

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 42 (2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00715 .

Barrett, L. (2010). Too much monkey business. In G. Semin & G. Echterhoff (Eds.), Grounding sociality (pp. 219–236) . Psychology Press.

Barron, B. F., Verkuylen, L., Belisle, J., Paliliunas, D., & Dixon, M. R. (2018). Teaching "Then-Later" and "Here-There" relations to children with autism: An evaluation of single reversals and transformation of stimulus function. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 (1), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-0216-1 .

Baum, W. M. (1998). Why not ask “Does the chimpanzee have a soul?”. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21 (1), 116–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X98000703 .

Baum, W. M. (2011). Behaviorism, private events, and the molar view of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 34 (2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392249 .

Belisle, J., Dixon, M. R., Stanley, C. R., Munoz, B., & Daar, J. H. (2016). Teaching foundational perspective-taking skills to children with autism using the PEAK-T curriculum: Single-reversal “I–You” deictic frames. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49 (4), 965–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.324 .

Bräuer, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Visual perspective taking in dogs ( Canis familiaris ) in the presence of barriers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 88 (3–4), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.03.004 .

Butterworth, G., & Cochran, E. (1980). Towards a mechanism of joint visual attention in human infancy. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3 (3), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548000300303 .

Butterworth, G., & Jarrett, N. (1991). What minds have in common is space: Spatial mechanisms serving joint visual attention in infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9 (1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1991.tb00862.x .

Catala, A., Mang, B., Wallis, L., & Huber, L. (2017). Dogs demonstrate perspective taking based on geometrical gaze following in a guesser–knower task. Animal Cognition, 20 (4), 581–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1082-x .

Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Sloan.

Davlin, N. L., Rehfeldt, R. A., & Lovett, S. (2011). A relational frame theory approach to understanding perspective-taking using children’s stories in typically developing children. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12 (2), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434392 .

Diaz, J., Luoma, S., & Miguel, C. (2020). The role of verbal behavior in the establishment of comparative relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 113 (2), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.582 .

Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62 (3), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331 .

Edwards, T. L., Lotfizadeh, A. D., & Poling, A. (2019a). Motivating operations and stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 112 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.516 .

Edwards, T. L., Lotfizadeh, A. D., & Poling, A. (2019b). Rethinking motivating operations: A reply to commentaries on Edwards, Lotfizadeh, and Poling (2019). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 112 (1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.542 .

Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2001). Effects of experience and social context on prospective caching strategies by scrub jays. Nature, 414 (6862), 443–446. https://doi.org/10.1038/35106560 .

Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2008). How to build a scrub-jay that reads minds. In S. Itakura & K. Fujita (Eds.), Origins of the Social Mind (pp. 65–97). Springer Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-75179-3_4

Epstein, R. (1981). On pigeons and people: A preliminary look at the Columban Simulation Project. The Behavior Analyst, 4 (1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391851 .

Epstein, R. (1987). The spontaneous interconnection of four repertoires of behavior in a pigeon ( Columba livia ). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 101 (2), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.101.2.197 .

Epstein, R. (1991). Skinner, creativity, and the problem of spontaneous behavior. Psychological Science, 2 (6), 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00168.x .

Epstein, R. (2008). Why private events are associative: Automatic chaining and associationism. Journal of Mind & Behavior , 267–280.

Epstein, R. (2014). On the orderliness of behavioral variability: Insights from Generativity Theory. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3 (4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.08.004 .

Flavell, J. H. (1986). The development of children's knowledge about the appearance–reality distinction. American Psychologist, 41 (4), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.4.418 .

Flavell, J. H. (2004). Development of knowledge about vision. In D. T. Levin (Ed.), Thinking and seeing: Visual metacognition in adults and children (pp. 13–36). MIT Press.

Flavell, J. H., Everett, B. A., Croft, K., & Flavell, E. R. (1981). Young children's knowledge about visual perception: Further evidence for the Level 1–Level 2 distinction. Developmental Psychology, 17 (1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.99 .

Flavell, J. H., Flavell, E. F., Green, F. L., & Wilcox, S. A. (1980). Young children's knowledge about visual perception: Effect of observer's distance from target on perceptual clarity of target. Developmental Psychology, 16 (1), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.16.1.10 .

Gale, C. M.’., Eikeseth, S., & Klintwall, L. (2019). Children with autism show atypical preference for non-social stimuli. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46705-8 .

Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19 (4), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x .

Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M. (1992). Social referencing as a learned process. In S. Feinman (Ed.), Social referencing and the social construction of reality in infancy (pp. 151–173). Plenum.

Ghirlanda, S., & Enquist, M. (2003). A century of generalization. Animal Behaviour, 66 (1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2174 .

Gilroy, S. P., Lorah, E. R., Dodge, J., & Fiorello, C. (2015). Establishing deictic repertoires in autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 19 , 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2015.04.004 .

Gómez-Becerra, I., Martín, M. J., Chávez-Brown, M., & Douglas Greer, R. (2007). Perspective taking in children with autism. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8 (1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2007.11434270 .

Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. W. (1988). Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction.  Child Development ,  59 (1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130386 .

Gordon, R. M. (1998). The prior question: Do human privates have a theory of mind? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21 (1), 120–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X98000703 .

Gould, E., Tarbox, J., O'Hora, D., Noone, S., & Bergstrom, R. (2011). Teaching children with autism a basic component skill of perspective-taking. Behavioral Interventions, 26 (1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.320 .

Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69 (1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857 .

Gray, C., & Russell, P. (1998). Theory of mind in nonhuman primates: A question of language? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21 (1), 121–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X98300709 .

Greer, R. D., & Longano, J. (2010). A rose by naming: How we may learn how to do it. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 26 (1), 73–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393085 .

Gross, A. C., & Fox, E. J. (2009). Relational frame theory: An overview of the controversy. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25 (1), 87–98.

Guinther, P. M. (2017). Contextual influence over deriving others' true beliefs using a relational triangulation perspective-taking protocol (RT-PTP-M1). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 108 (3), 433–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.291 .

Guinther, P. M. (2018). Contextual influence over deriving another's false beliefs using a relational triangulation perspective taking protocol (RT-PTP-M2). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 110 (3), 500–521.

Guinther, P., & Dougher, M. (2015). The clinical relevance of stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory in influencing the behavior of verbally competent adults. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2 , 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.015 .

Hall, G. A., & Chase, P. N. (1991). The relationship between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9 (1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392865 .

Happé, F. G. (1995). The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism. Child Development, 66 (3), 843. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131954 .

Hayes, S. C. (1984). Making sense of spirituality. Behaviorism, 12 (2), 99–110.

Google Scholar  

Hayes, S. C. (1986). The case of the silent dog—Verbal reports and the analysis of rules: A review of Ericsson and Simon's Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45 (3), 351–363.

Hayes S. C., Gifford E. V., & Townsend R. C. (2001). Thinking, problem-solving, and pragmatic verbal analysis. In D. Barnes-Holmes, S. C. Hayes., & R. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition ( pp. 87–101). Springer Science & Business Media.

Hayes, S. C., Law, S., Assemi, K., Falletta-Cowden, N., Shamblin, M., Burleigh, K., Olla, R., Forman, M., & Smith, P. (2021). Relating is an operant: A fly over of 35 years of RFT research. Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento, 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.18761/PAC.2021.v12.RFT.02 .

Heagle, A., & Rehfeldt, R. (2006). Teaching perspective-taking skills to typically developing children through derived relational responding. Journal of Early & Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3 (1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100321 .

Heyes, C. M. (1998). Theory of mind in nonhuman primates. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21 (1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X98000703 .

Heyes, C. (2017). Apes submentalise. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21 (1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.006 .

Holth, P. (2008). What is a problem? Theoretical conceptions and methodological approaches to the study of problem solving. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 9 (2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2008.11434302 .

Hooper, N., Erdogan, A., Keen, G., Lawton, K., & McHugh, L. (2015). Perspective taking reduces the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4 (2), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.02.002 .

Howlin, P., Baron-Cohen, S., & Hadwin, J. (1999). Teaching children with autism to mind-read: A practical guide for teachers and parents . John Wiley & Sons.

Hutchins, T. L., Prelock, P. A., & Chace, W. (2008). Test-retest reliability of a theory of mind task battery for children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 23 (4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357608322998 .

Jackson, M. L., Mendoza, D. R., & Adams, A. N. (2014). Teaching a deictic relational repertoire to children with autism. The Psychological Record, 64 (4), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0078-z .

Janssen, G., De Mey, H., Hendriks, A., Koppers, A., Kaarsemaker, M., Witteman, C., & Egger, J. (2014). Assessing deictic relational responding in individuals with social anxiety disorder: Evidence of perspective-taking difficulties. The Psychological Record, 64 (1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0013-3 .

Kaminski, J., Tomasello, M., Call, J., & Bräuer, J. (2009). Domestic dogs are sensitive to a human's perspective. Behaviour, 146 (7), 979–998. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853908X395530 .

Karg, K., Schmelz, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2015). The goggles experiment: Can chimpanzees use self-experience to infer what a competitor can see? Animal Behaviour, 105 , 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.028 .

Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2020). The study of perspective-taking: Contributions from mainstream psychology and behavior analysis. The Psychological Record, 70 (4), 581–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00356-3 .

Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., McEnteggart, C., & Finn, M. (2018). Exploring differential trial-type effects and the impact of a read-aloud procedure on deictic relational responding on the IRAP. The Psychological Record, 68 (2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0276-1 .

Kessler, K., & Thomson, L. A. (2010). The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: Embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference. Cognition, 114 (1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.015 .

Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science, 354 (6308), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8110 .

Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2017). A test of the submentalizing hypothesis: Apes' performance in a false belief task inanimate control. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 10 (4), e1343771–e1343771. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2017.1343771 .

Labash, A., Aru, J., Matiisen, T., Tampuu, A., & Vicente, R. (2020). Perspective taking in deep reinforcement learning agents. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 14 , 69. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2020.00069 .

Lattal, K. (1975). Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23 (2), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1975.23-241 .

LeBlanc, L. A., Coates, A. M., Daneshvar, S., Charlop-Christy, M. H., Morris, C., & Lancaster, B. M. (2003). Using video modeling and reinforcement to teach perspective-taking skills to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36 (2), 253–257. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-253 .

Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1988). Autistic children's understanding of seeing, knowing and believing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6 (4), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1988.tb01104.x .

Lovett, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2014). An evaluation of multiple exemplar instruction to teach perspective-taking skills to adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19 (2), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100575 .

Maginnity, M. E., & Grace, R. C. (2014). Visual perspective taking by dogs ( Canis familiaris ) in a Guesser–Knower task: Evidence for a canine theory of mind? Animal Cognition, 17 (6), 1375–1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0773-9 .

McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54 (1), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395465 .

McLoughlin, S., & Stewart, I. (2017). Empirical advances in studying relational networks. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6 (3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.11.009 .

McLoughlin, S., Tyndall, I., & Pereira, A. (2020). Convergence of multiple fields on a relational reasoning approach to cognition. Intelligence, 83,  101491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101491 .

Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). “Like me”: a foundation for social cognition. Developmental Science, 10 (1), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00574.x .

Meltzoff, A. N., & Brooks, R. (2008). Self-experience as a mechanism for learning about others. Developmental Psychology, 44 (5), 1257–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012888 .

Menchaca-Brandan, M. A., Liu, A. M., Oman, C. M., & Natapoff, A. (2007). Influence of perspective-taking and mental rotation abilities in space teleoperation. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human – Robot Interaction, pp. 271–278.

Michelon, P., & Zacks, J. M. (2006). Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Perception & Psychophysics, 68 (2), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193680 .

Miguel, C. F. (2018). Problem-solving, bidirectional naming, and the development of verbal repertoires. Behavior Analysis: Research & Practice, 18 (4), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000110 .

Moll, H., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2011). How does it look? Level 2 perspective-taking at 36 months of age. Child Development, 82 (2), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01571.x .

Montoya-Rodríguez, M. M., & Cobos, F. J. M. (2016). Relationship between deictic relational responding and theory of mind tasks in children: A pilot study. The Psychological Record, 66 (4), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0193-0 .

Montoya-Rodríguez, M. M., McHugh, L., & Cobos, F. J. M. (2017). Teaching perspective-taking skills to an adult with Down syndrome: A case study. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6 (3), 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.04.012 .

Moore, J. (2000). Thinking about thinking and feeling about feeling. The Behavior Analyst, 23 (1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391998 .

Moore, J. (2015). From a behavioral point of view: A psychological primer. Sloan Educational Publishing.

Moustakis, I. S., & Mellon, R. C. (2018). Transitivity as Skinnerian problem solving controlled by self-constructed relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 110 (3), 451–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.473 .

O’Neill, J., & Weil, T. (2014). Training deictic relational responding in people diagnosed with schizophrenia. The Psychological Record, 64 (2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0005-3 .

Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308 (5719), 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107621 .

Pelaez, M., Virues-Ortega, J., & Gewirtz, J. L. (2012). Acquisition of social referencing via discrimination training in infants. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45 (1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-23 .

Palmer, D. C. (1991). A behavioral interpretation of memory. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 261–279) . Context Press.

Palmer, D. C. (2004). Data in search of a principle: A review of Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81 , 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2004.81-189 .

Penn, D. C., & Povinelli, D. J. (2007). On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a “theory of mind.”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362 (1480), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2023 .

Ploog, B. O. (2010). Stimulus overselectivity four decades later: A review of the literature and its implications for current research in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 40 (11), 1332–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0990-2 .

Povinelli, D., Nelson, K., & Boysen, S. (1990). Inferences about guessing and knowing by chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 104 (3), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.104.3.203 .

Povinelli, D. J., Eddy, T. J., Hobson, R. P., & Tomasello, M. (1996). What young chimpanzees know about seeing. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61 (3), 1–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166159 .

Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 1 (4), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512 .

Rachlin, H. (2018). Is talking to yourself thinking? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 109 (1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.273 .

Rehfeldt, R., Dillen, A., Ziomek, J., & Kowalchuk, E. (2007). Assessing relational learning deficits in perspective-taking in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. The Psychological Record, 57 (1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395563 .

Rehfeldt, R. A., & Hayes, L. J. (1998). The operant-respondent distinction revisited: Toward an understanding of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 48 (2), 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395266 .

Rendón, M. I., Soler, F., & Cortés, M. (2012). Simple deictic relations, perspective-taking and social competence. Suma Psicologica, 19 (2), 19–37.

Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67 (3), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.67-275 .

Rodriguez, P. P., & Gutierrez, A. (2017). A comparison of two procedures to condition social stimuli to function as reinforcers for children with autism. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 22 (1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/bdb0000059 .

Senju, A., Southgate, V., Snape, C., Leonard, M., & Csibra, G. (2011). Do 18-month-olds really attribute mental states to others? A critical test. Psychological Science, 22 (7), 878–880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611411584 .

Schlinger, H. D. (2009). Theory of mind: An overview and behavioral perspective. The Psychological Record, 59 (3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395673 .

Schlinger, H. D. (2017). Theory of mind is just behavior. Current Psychology Reviews, 13 (2), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573400513666170503115212 .

Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Clever animals and killjoy explanations in comparative psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (11), 477–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.002 .

Shimp, C. P. (1983). The local organization of behavior: Dissociations between a pigeon's behavior and self-reports of that behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39 (1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1983.39-61 .

Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Simonyan, K., Antonoglou, I., Huang, A., Guez, A., Hurbert, T., Baker, L., Lai, M., Bolton, A., Chen, Y., Lillorap, T., Hui, F., Sifre, L., den Driessche, V., Graepel, T., & Hassabis, D. (2017). Mastering the game of go without human knowledge. Nature (London), 550 (7676), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24270 .

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18 (8), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045185 .

Skinner, B. F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method, and theory . (pp. 225–257). Robert E. Krieger.

Skinner, B. F. (1984). The evolution of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41 (2), 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1984.41-217 .

Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18 (7), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01944.x .

Spradlin, J. E., & Brady, N. (2008). A behavior analytic interpretation of theory of mind. Revista Internacional de Psicología y Terapia Psicológica, 8 (3), 335–350.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Starr, E., & Baine, D. (1996). Theory of mind and children with autism: A direct instruction approach to teaching the colour and size appearance-reality distinction. Exceptionality Education Canada, 6 (1), 69–88.

Steele, S., Joseph, R. M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2003). Developmental change in theory of mind abilities in children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 33 (4), 461–467. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025075115100 .

Stone, V. E., Baron-Cohen, S., & Knight, R. T. (1998). Frontal lobe contributions to theory of mind. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 (5), 640–656. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998562942 .

Surtees, A., Apperly, I., & Samson, D. (2013). Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes. Cognition, 129 (2), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.008 .

Tibbetts, P. A., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2005). Assessing relational learning deficits in perspective-taking in children with high-functioning autism. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 12 (1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100562 .

Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (2006). Do chimpanzees know what others see—or only what they are looking at? In S. Hurley & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational animals? (pp. 371–384). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528272.003.0017

Tomasello, M., Call, J., & Hare, B. (2003). Chimpanzees versus humans: It's not that simple. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (6), 239–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00107-4 .

Udell, M. A., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. (2011). Can your dog read your mind? Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking. Learning & Behavior, 39 (4), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-011-0034-6 .

Vallana, M., Bosco, F. M., Angeleri, R., Sacco, K., Bara, B. G., & Colle, L. (2007). Communicative ability in schizophrenic patients: Executive function, theory of mind and mental representations. In D. McNamara & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1593-1598). Cognitive Science Society.

Valverde, M., Luciano, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Transfer of aversive respondent elicitation in accordance with equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92 (1), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2009.92-85 .

Van der Graaff, J., Branje, S., De Wied, M., Hawk, S., Van Lier, P., & Meeus, W. (2014). Perspective taking and empathic concern in adolescence: Gender differences in developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 50 (3), 881–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034325 .

Van der Vaart, E., & Hemelrijk, C. K. (2014). 'Theory of mind' in animals: Ways to make progress. Synthese, 191 (3), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0170-3 .

Vilardaga, R., Estévez, A., Levin, M. E., & Hayes, S. C. (2012). Deictic relational responding, empathy, and experiential avoidance as predictors of social anhedonia: Further contributions from relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 62 (3), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395811 .

Villatte, M., Monestès, J. L., McHugh, L., i Baque, E. F., & Loas, G. (2010a). Adopting the perspective of another in belief attribution: Contribution of relational frame theory to the understanding of impairments in schizophrenia. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 41 (2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.11.004 .

Villatte, M., Monestès, J. L., McHugh, L., & i Baqué, E. F., & Loas, G. (2010b). Assessing perspective taking in schizophrenia using relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 60 (3), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395719 .

Vonk, J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2011). Preliminary investigations of cognitive plasticity: Social and physical causality in home-reared chimpanzees. In N. Eilan, H. Lerman, & J. Roessler (Eds.), Perception, causation, and objectivity: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 342–367) . Oxford University Press.

Weil, T. M., Hayes, S. C., & Capurro, P. (2011). Establishing a deictic relational repertoire in young children. The Psychological Record, 61 (3), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395767 .

Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13 (1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand

Tokiko Taylor & Timothy L. Edwards

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy L. Edwards .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Code Availability

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft of this work for their invaluable feedback.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Taylor, T., Edwards, T.L. What Can We Learn by Treating Perspective Taking as Problem Solving?. Perspect Behav Sci 44 , 359–387 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00307-w

Download citation

Accepted : 11 July 2021

Published : 02 August 2021

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00307-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• deictic framing
• mind reading
• precurrent behavior
• stimulus control
• theory of mind
• visual perspective taking
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Analysing Complex Problem-Solving Strategies from a Cognitive Perspective: The Role of Thinking Skills

1 MTA-SZTE Digital Learning Technologies Research Group, Center for Learning and Instruction, University of Szeged, 6722 Szeged, Hungary

Gyöngyvér Molnár

2 MTA-SZTE Digital Learning Technologies Research Group, Institute of Education, University of Szeged, 6722 Szeged, Hungary; uh.degezs-u.yspde@ranlomyg

Associated Data

The data used to support the findings cannot be shared at this time as it also forms part of an ongoing study.

Complex problem solving (CPS) is considered to be one of the most important skills for successful learning. In an effort to explore the nature of CPS, this study aims to investigate the role of inductive reasoning (IR) and combinatorial reasoning (CR) in the problem-solving process of students using statistically distinguishable exploration strategies in the CPS environment. The sample was drawn from a group of university students (N = 1343). The tests were delivered via the eDia online assessment platform. Latent class analyses were employed to seek students whose problem-solving strategies showed similar patterns. Four qualitatively different class profiles were identified: (1) 84.3% of the students were proficient strategy users, (2) 6.2% were rapid learners, (3) 3.1% were non-persistent explorers, and (4) 6.5% were non-performing explorers. Better exploration strategy users showed greater development in thinking skills, and the roles of IR and CR in the CPS process were varied for each type of strategy user. To sum up, the analysis identified students’ problem-solving behaviours in respect of exploration strategy in the CPS environment and detected a number of remarkable differences in terms of the use of thinking skills between students with different exploration strategies.

1. Introduction

Problem solving is part and parcel of our daily activities, for instance, in determining what to wear in the morning, how to use our new electronic devices, how to reach a restaurant by public transport, how to arrange our schedule to achieve the greatest work efficiency and how to communicate with people in a foreign country. In most cases, it is essential to solve the problems that recur in our study, work and daily lives. These situations require problem solving. Generally, problem solving is the thinking that occurs if we want “to overcome barriers between a given state and a desired goal state by means of behavioural and/or cognitive, multistep activities” ( Frensch and Funke 1995, p. 18 ). It has also been considered as one of the most important skills for successful learning in the 21st century. This study focuses on one specific kind of problem solving, complex problem solving (CPS). (Numerous other terms are also used ( Funke et al. 2018 ), such as interactive problem solving ( Greiff et al. 2013 ; Wu and Molnár 2018 ), and creative problem solving ( OECD 2010 ), etc.).

CPS is a transversal skill ( Greiff et al. 2014 ), operating several mental activities and thinking skills (see Molnár et al. 2013 ). In order to explore the nature of CPS, some studies have focused on detecting its component skills ( Wu and Molnár 2018 ), whereas others have analysed students’ behaviour during the problem-solving process ( Greiff et al. 2018 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ). This study aims to link these two fields by investigating the role of thinking skills in learning by examining students’ use of statistically distinguishable exploration strategies in the CPS environment.

1.1. Complex Problem Solving: Definition, Assessment and Relations to Intelligence

According to a widely accepted definition proposed by Buchner ( 1995 ), CPS is “the successful interaction with task environments that are dynamic (i.e., change as a function of users’ intervention and/or as a function of time) and in which some, if not all, of the environment’s regularities can only be revealed by successful exploration and integration of the information gained in that process” ( Buchner 1995, p. 14 ). A CPS process is split into two phases, knowledge acquisition and knowledge application. In the knowledge acquisition (KAC) phase of CPS, the problem solver understands the problem itself and stores the acquired information ( Funke 2001 ; Novick and Bassok 2005 ). In the knowledge application (KAP) phase, the problem solver applies the acquired knowledge to bring about the transition from a given state to a goal state ( Novick and Bassok 2005 ).

Problem solving, especially CPS, has frequently been compared or linked to intelligence in previous studies (e.g., Beckmann and Guthke 1995 ; Stadler et al. 2015 ; Wenke et al. 2005 ). Lotz et al. ( 2017 ) observed that “intelligence and [CPS] are two strongly overlapping constructs” (p. 98). There are many similarities and commonalities that can be detected between CPS and intelligence. For instance, CPS and intelligence share some of the same key features, such as the integration of information ( Stadler et al. 2015 ). Furthermore, Wenke et al. ( 2005 ) stated that “the ability to solve problems has featured prominently in virtually every definition of human intelligence” (p. 9); meanwhile, from the opposite perspective, intelligence has also been considered as one of the most important predictors of the ability to solve problems ( Wenke et al. 2005 ). Moreover, the relation between CPS and intelligence has also been discussed from an empirical perspective. A meta-analysis conducted by Stadler et al. ( 2015 ) selected 47 empirical studies (total sample size N = 13,740) which focused on the correlation between CPS and intelligence. The results of their analysis confirmed that a correlation between CPS and intelligence exists with a moderate effect size of M(g) = 0.43.

Due to the strong link between CPS and intelligence, assessments of these two domains have been connected and have overlapped to a certain extent. For instance, Beckmann and Guthke ( 1995 ) observed that some of the intelligence tests “capture something akin to an individual’s general ability to solve problems (e.g., Sternberg 1982 )” (p. 184). Nowadays, some widely used CPS assessment methods are related to intelligence but still constitute a distinct construct ( Schweizer et al. 2013 ), such as the MicroDYN approach ( Greiff and Funke 2009 ; Greiff et al. 2012 ; Schweizer et al. 2013 ). This approach uses the minimal complex system to simulate simplistic, artificial but still complex problems following certain construction rules ( Greiff and Funke 2009 ; Greiff et al. 2012 ).

The MicroDYN approach has been widely employed to measure problem solving in a well-defined problem context (i.e., “problems have a clear set of means for reaching a precisely described goal state”, Dörner and Funke 2017, p. 1 ). To complete a task based on the MicroDYN approach, the problem solver engages in dynamic interaction with the task to acquire relevant knowledge. It is not possible to create this kind of test environment with the traditional paper-and-pencil-based method. Therefore, it is currently only possible to conduct a MicroDYN-based CPS assessment within the computer-based assessment framework. In the context of computer-based assessment, the problem-solvers’ operations were recorded and logged by the assessment platform. Thus, except for regular achievement-focused result data, logfile data are also available for analysis. This provides the option of exploring and monitoring problem solvers’ behaviour and thinking processes, specifically, their exploration strategies, during the problem-solving process (see, e.g., Chen et al. 2019 ; Greiff et al. 2015a ; Molnár and Csapó 2018 ; Molnár et al. 2022 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ).

Problem solving, in the context of an ill-defined problem (i.e., “problems have no clear problem definition, their goal state is not defined clearly, and the means of moving towards the (diffusely described) goal state are not clear”, Dörner and Funke 2017, p. 1), involved a different cognitive process than that in the context of a well-defined problem ( Funke 2010 ; Schraw et al. 1995 ), and it cannot be measured with the MicroDYN approach. The nature of ill-defined problem solving has been explored and discussed in numerous studies (e.g., Dörner and Funke 2017 ; Hołda et al. 2020 ; Schraw et al. 1995 ; Welter et al. 2017 ). This will not be discussed here as this study focuses on well-defined problem solving.

1.2. Inductive and Combinatorial Reasoning as Component Skills of Complex Problem Solving

Frensch and Funke ( 1995 ) constructed a theoretical framework that summarizes the basic components of CPS and the interrelations among the components. The framework contains three separate components: problem solver, task and environment. The impact of the problem solver is mainly relevant to three main categories, which are memory contents, dynamic information processing and non-cognitive variables. Some thinking skills have been reported to play an important role in dynamic information processing. We can thus describe them as component skills of CPS. Inductive reasoning (IR) and combinatorial reasoning (CR) are the two thinking skills that have been most frequently discussed as component skills of CPS.

IR is the reasoning skill that has been covered most commonly in the literature. Currently, there is no universally accepted definition. Molnár et al. ( 2013 ) described it as the cognitive process of acquiring general regularities by generalizing single and specific observations and experiences, whereas Klauer ( 1990 ) defined it as the discovery of regularities that relies upon the detection of similarities and/or dissimilarities as concerns attributes of or relations to or between objects. Sandberg and McCullough ( 2010 ) provided a general conclusion of the definitions of IR: it is the process of moving from the specific to the general.

Csapó ( 1997 ) pointed out that IR is a basic component of thinking and that it forms a central aspect of intellectual functioning. Some studies have also discussed the role of IR in a problem-solving environment. For instance, Mayer ( 1998 ) stated that IR will be applied in information processing during the process of solving general problems. Gilhooly ( 1982 ) also pointed out that IR plays a key role in some activities in the problem-solving process, such as hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing. Moreover, the influence of IR on both KAC and KAP has been analysed and demonstrated in previous studies ( Molnár et al. 2013 ).

Empirical studies have also provided evidence that IR and CPS are related. Based on the results of a large-scale assessment (N = 2769), Molnár et al. ( 2013 ) showed that IR significantly correlated with 9–17-year-old students’ domain-general problem-solving achievement (r = 0.44–0.52). Greiff et al. ( 2015b ) conducted a large-scale assessment project (N = 2021) in Finland to explore the links between fluid reasoning skills and domain-general CPS. The study measured fluid reasoning as a two-dimensional model which consisted of deductive reasoning and scientific reasoning and included inductive thinking processes ( Greiff et al. 2015b ). The results drawing on structural equation modelling indicated that fluid reasoning which was partly based on IR had significant and strong predictive effects on both KAC (β = 0.51) and KAP (β = 0.55), the two phases of problem solving. Such studies have suggested that IR is one of the component skills of CPS.

According to Adey and Csapó ’s ( 2012 ) definition, CR is the process of creating complex constructions out of a set of given elements that satisfy the conditions explicitly given in or inferred from the situation. In this process, some cognitive operations, such as combinations, arrangements, permutations, notations and formulae, will be employed ( English 2005 ). CR is one of the basic components of formal thinking ( Batanero et al. 1997 ). The relationship between CR and CPS has frequently been discussed. English ( 2005 ) demonstrated that CR has an essential meaning in several types of problem situations, such as problems requiring the systematic testing of alternative solutions. Moreover, Newell ( 1993 ) pointed out that CR is applied in some key activities of problem-solving information processing, such as strategy generation and application. Its functions include, but are not limited to, helping problem solvers to discover relationships between certain elements and concepts, promoting their fluency of thinking when they are considering different strategies ( Csapó 1999 ) and identifying all possible alternatives ( OECD 2014 ). Moreover, Wu and Molnár ’s ( 2018 ) empirical study drew on a sample (N = 187) of 11–13-year-old primary school students in China. Their study built a structural equation model between CPS, IR and CR, and the result indicated that CR showed a strong and statistically significant predictive power for CPS (β = 0.55). Thus, the results of the empirical study also support the argument that CR is one of the component skills of CPS.

1.3. Behaviours and Strategies in a Complex Problem-Solving Environment

Wüstenberg et al. ( 2012 ) stated that the creation and implementation of strategic exploration are core actions of the problem-solving task. Exploring and generating effective information are key to successfully solving a problem. Wittmann and Hattrup ( 2004 ) illustrated that “riskier strategies [create] a learning environment with greater opportunities to discover and master the rules and boundaries [of a problem]” (p. 406). Thus, when gathering information about a complex problem, there may be differences between exploration strategies in terms of efficacy. The MicroDYN scenarios, a simplification and simulation of the real-world problem-solving context, will also be influenced by the adoption and implementation of exploration strategies.

The effectiveness of the isolated variation strategy (or “Vary-One-Thing-At-A-Time” strategy—VOTAT; Vollmeyer et al. 1996 ) in a CPS environment has been hotly debated ( Chen et al. 2019 ; Greiff et al. 2018 ; Molnár and Csapó 2018 ; Molnár et al. 2022 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ; Wüstenberg et al. 2014 ). To use the VOTAT strategy, a problem solver “systematically varies only one input variable, whereas the others remain unchanged. This way, the effect of the variable that has just been changed can be observed directly by monitoring the changes in the output variables” ( Molnár and Csapó 2018, p. 2 ). Understanding and using VOTAT effectively is the foundation for developing more complex strategies for coordinating multiple variables and the basis for some phases of scientific thinking (i.e., inquiry, analysis, inference and argument; Kuhn 2010 ; Kuhn et al. 1995 ).

Some previous studies have indicated that students who are able to apply VOTAT are more likely to achieve higher performance in a CPS assessment ( Greiff et al. 2018 ), especially if the problem is a well-defined minimal complex system (such as MicroDYN) ( Fischer et al. 2012 ; Molnár and Csapó 2018 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ). For instance, Molnár and Csapó ( 2018 ) conducted an empirical study to explore how students’ exploration strategies influence their performance in an interactive problem-solving environment. They measured a group (N = 4371) of 3rd- to 12th-grade (aged 9–18) Hungarian students’ problem-solving achievement and modelled students’ exploration strategies. This result confirmed that students’ exploration strategies influence their problem-solving performance. For example, conscious VOTAT strategy users proved to be the best problem-solvers. Furthermore, other empirical studies (e.g., Molnár et al. 2022 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ) achieved similar results, thus confirming the importance of VOTAT in a MicroDYN-based CPS environment.

Lotz et al. ( 2017 ) illustrated that effective use of VOTAT is associated with higher levels of intelligence. Their study also pointed out that intelligence has the potential to facilitate successful exploration behaviour. Reasoning skills are an important component of general intelligence. Based on Lotz et al. ’s ( 2017 ) statements, the roles IR and CR play in the CPS process might vary due to students’ different strategy usage patterns. However, there is still a lack of empirical studies in this regard.

2. Research Aims and Questions

Numerous studies have explored the nature of CPS, some of them discussing and analysing it from behavioural or cognitive perspectives. However, there have barely been any that have merged these two perspectives. From the cognitive perspective, this study explores the role of thinking skills (including IR and CR) in the cognition process of CPS. From the behavioural perspective, the study focuses on students’ behaviour (i.e., their exploration strategy) in the CPS assessment process. More specifically, the research aims to fill this gap and examine students’ use of statistically distinguishable exploration strategies in CPS environments and to detect the connection between the level of students’ thinking skills and their behaviour strategies in the CPS environment. The following research questions were thus formed.

• (RQ1) What exploration strategy profiles characterise the various problem-solvers at the university level?
• (RQ2) Can developmental differences in CPS, IR and CR be detected among students with different exploration strategy profiles?
• (RQ3) What are the similarities and differences in the roles IR and CR play in the CPS process as well as in the two phases of CPS (i.e., KAC and KAP) among students with different exploration strategy profiles?

3.1. Participants and Procedure

The sample was drawn from one of the largest universities in Hungary. Participation was voluntary, but students were able to earn one course credit for taking part in the assessment. The participants were students who had just started their studies there (N = 1671). 43.4% of the first-year students took part in the assessment. 50.9% of the participants were female, and 49.1% were male. We filtered the sample and excluded those who had more than 80% missing data on any of the tests. After the data were cleaned, data from 1343 students were available for analysis. The test was designed and delivered via the eDia online assessment system ( Csapó and Molnár 2019 ). The assessment was held in the university ICT room and divided into two sessions. The first session involved the CPS test, whereas the second session entailed the IR and CR tests. Each session lasted 45 min. The language of the tests was Hungarian, the mother tongue of the students.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. complex problem solving (cps).

The CPS assessment instrument adopted the MicroDYN approach. It contains a total of twelve scenarios, and each scenario consisted of two items (one item in the KAC phase and one item in the KAP phase in each problem scenario). Twelve KAC items and twelve KAP items were therefore delivered on the CPS test for a total of twenty-four items. Each scenario has a fictional cover story. For instance, students found a sick cat in front of their house, and they were expected to feed the cat with two different kinds of cat food to help it recover.

Each item contains up to three input and three output variables. The relations between the input and output variables were formulated with linear structural equations ( Funke 2001 ). Figure 1 shows a MicroDYN sample structure containing three input variables (A, B and C), three output variables (X, Y and Z) and a number of possible relations between the variables. The complexity of the item was defined by the number of input and output variables, and the number of relations between the variables. The test began with the item with the lowest complexity. The complexity of each item gradually increased as the test progressed.

A typical MicroDYN structure with three input variables and three output variables ( Greiff and Funke 2009 ).

The interface of each item displays the value of each variable in both numerical and figural forms (See Figure 2 ). Each of the input variables has a controller, which makes it possible to vary and set the value between +2 (+ +) and −2 (− −). To operate the system, students need to click the “+” or “−” button or use the slider directly to select the value they want to be added to or subtracted from the current value of the input variable. After clicking the “Apply” button in the interface, the input variables will add or subtract the selected value, and the output variables will show the corresponding changes. The history of the values for the input and output variables within the same problem scenario is displayed on screen. If students want to withdraw all the changes and set all the variables to their original status, they can click the “Reset” button.

Screenshot of the MicroDYN item Cat—first phase (knowledge acquisition). (The items were administered in Hungarian.)

In the first phase of the problem-solving process, the KAC phase, students are asked to interact with the system by changing the value of the input variables and observing and analysing the corresponding changes in the output variables. They are then expected to determine the relationship between the input and output variables and draw it in the form of (an) arrow(s) on the concept map at the bottom of the interface. To avoid item dependence in the second phase of the problem-solving process, the students are provided with a concept map during the KAP phase (see Figure 3 ), which shows the correct connections between the input and output variables. The students are expected to interact with the system by manipulating the input variables to make the output variables reach the given target values in four steps or less. That is, they cannot click on the “Apply” button more than four times. The first phase had a 180 s time limit, whereas the second had a 90 s time limit.

Screenshot of the MicroDYN item Cat—second phase (knowledge application). (The items were administered in Hungarian).

3.2.2. Inductive Reasoning (IR)

The IR instrument (see Figure 4 ) was originally designed and developed in Hungary ( Csapó 1997 ). In the last 25 years, the instrument has been further developed and scaled for a wide age range ( Molnár and Csapó 2011 ). In addition, figural items have been added, and the assessment method has evolved from paper-and-pencil to computer-based ( Pásztor 2016 ). Currently, the instrument is widely employed in a number of countries (see, e.g., Mousa and Molnár 2020 ; Pásztor et al. 2018 ; Wu et al. 2022 ; Wu and Molnár 2018 ). In the present study, four types of items were included after test adaptation: figural series, figural analogies, number analogies and number series. Students were expected to ascertain the correct relationship between the given figures and numbers and select a suitable figure or number as their answer. Students used the drag-and-drop operation to provide their answers. In total, 49 inductive reasoning items were delivered to the participating students.

Sample items for the IR test. (The items were administered in Hungarian.).

3.2.3. Combinatorial Reasoning (CR)

The CR instrument (see Figure 5 ) was originally designed by Csapó ( 1988 ). The instrument was first developed in paper-and-pencil format and then modified for computer use ( Pásztor and Csapó 2014 ). Each item contained figural or verbal elements and a clear requirement for combing through the elements. Students were asked to list every single combination based on a given rule they could find. For the figural items, students provided their answers using the drag-and-drop operation; for the verbal items, they were asked to type their answers in a text box provided on screen. The test consisted of eight combinatorial reasoning items in total.

Sample item for the CR test. (The items were administered in Hungarian).

3.3. Scoring

Students’ performance was automatically scored via the eDia platform. Items on the CPS and IR tests were scored dichotomously. In the first phase (KAC) of the CPS test, if a student drew all the correct relations on the concept map provided on screen within the given timeframe, his/her performance was assigned a score of 1 or otherwise a score of 0. In the second phase (KAP) of the CPS test, if the student successfully reached the given target values of the output variables by manipulating the level of the input variables within no more than four steps and the given timeframe, then his/her performance earned a score of 1 or otherwise a score of 0. On the IR test items, if a student selected the correct figure or number as his/her answer, then he or she received a score of 1; otherwise, the score was 0.

Students’ performance on the CR test items was scored according to a special J index, which was developed by Csapó ( 1988 ). The J index ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 means that the student provided all the correct combinations without any redundant combinations on the task. The formula for computing the J index is the following:

x stands for the number of correct combinations in the student’s answer,

T stands for the number of all possible correct combinations, and

y stands for the number of redundant combinations in the student’s answer.

Furthermore, according to Csapó ’s ( 1988 ) design, if y is higher than T, then the J index will be counted as 0.

3.4. Coding and Labelling the Logfile Data

Beyond concrete answer data, students’ interaction and manipulation behaviour were also logged in the assessment system. This made it possible to analyse students’ exploration behaviour in the first phase of the CPS process (KAC phase). Toward this aim, we adopted a labelling system developed by Molnár and Csapó ( 2018 ) to transfer the raw logfile data to structured data files for analysis. Based on the system, each trial (i.e., the sum of manipulations within the same problem scenario which was applied and tested by clicking the “Apply” button) was modelled as a single data entity. The sum of these trials within the same problem was defined as a strategy. In our study, we only consider the trials which were able to provide useful and new information for the problem-solvers, whereas the redundant or operations trials were excluded.

In this study, we analysed students’ trials to determine the extent to which they used the VOTAT strategy: fully, partially or not at all. This strategy is the most successful exploration strategy for such problems; it is the easiest to interpret and provides direct information about the given variable without any mediation effects ( Fischer et al. 2012 ; Greiff et al. 2018 ; Molnár and Csapó 2018 ; Wüstenberg et al. 2014 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ). Based on the definition of VOTAT noted in Section 1.3 , we checked students’ trials to ascertain if they systematically varied one input variable while keeping the others unchanged, or applied a different, less successful strategy. We considered the following three types of trials:

• “Only one single input variable was manipulated, whose relationship to the output variables was unknown (we considered a relationship unknown if its effect cannot be known from previous settings), while the other variables were set at a neutral value like zero […]
• One single input variable was changed, whose relationship to the output variables was unknown. The others were not at zero, but at a setting used earlier. […]
• One single input variable was changed, whose relationship to the output variables was unknown, and the others were not at zero; however, the effect of the other input variable(s) was known from earlier settings. Even so, this combination was not attempted earlier” ( Molnár and Csapó 2018, p. 8 )

We used the numbers 0, 1 and 2 to distinguish the level of students’ use of the most effective exploration strategy (i.e., VOTAT). If a student applied one or more of the above trials for every input variable within the same scenario, we considered that they had used the full VOTAT strategy and labelled this behaviour 2. If a student had only employed VOTAT on some but not all of the input variables, we concluded that they had used a partial VOTAT strategy for that problem scenario and labelled it 1. If a student had used none of the trials noted above in their problem exploration, then we determined that they had not used VOTAT at all and thus gave them a label of 0.

3.5. Data Analysis Plan

We used LCA (latent class analysis) to explore students’ exploration strategy profiles. LCA is a latent variable modelling approach that can be used to identify unmeasured (latent) classes of samples with similarly observed variables. LCA has been widely used in analysing logfile data for CPS assessment and in exploring students’ behaviour patterns (see, e.g., Gnaldi et al. 2020 ; Greiff et al. 2018 ; Molnár et al. 2022 ; Molnár and Csapó 2018 ; Mustafić et al. 2019 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ). The scores for the use of VOTAT in the KAC phase (0, 1, 2; see Section 3.4 ) were used for the LCA analysis. We used Mplus ( Muthén and Muthén 2010 ) to run the LCA analysis. Several indices were used to measure the model fit: AIC (Akaike information criterion), BIC (Bayesian information criterion) and aBIC (adjusted Bayesian information criterion). With these three indicators, lower values indicate a better model fit. Entropy (ranging from 0 to 1, with values close to 1 indicating high certainty in the classification). The Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio was used to compare the model containing n latent classes with the model containing n − 1 latent classes, and the p value was the indicator for whether a significant difference could be detected ( Lo et al. 2001 ). The results of the Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio analysis were used to decide the correct number of latent classes in LCA models.

ANOVA was used to analyse the performance differences for CPS, IR and CR across the students from the different class profiles. The analysis was run using SPSS. A path analysis (PA) was employed in the structural equation modelling (SEM) framework to investigate the roles of CR and IR in CPS and the similarities and differences across the students from the different exploration strategy profiles. The PA models were carried out with Mplus. The Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used as indicators for the model fit. A TLI and CFI larger than 0.90 paired with a RMSEA less than 0.08 are commonly considered as an acceptable model fit ( van de Schoot et al. 2012 ).

4.1. Descriptive Results

All three tests showed good reliability (Cronbach’s α: CPS: 0.89; IR: 0.87; CR: 0.79). Furthermore, the two sub-dimensions of the CPS test, KAC and KAP, also showed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α: KAC: 0.86; KAP: 0.78). The tests thus proved to be reliable. The means and standard deviations of students’ performance (in percentage) on each test are provided in Table 1 .

The means and standard deviations of students’ performance on each test.

4.2. Four Qualitatively Different Exploration Strategy Profiles Can Be Distinguished in CPS

Based on the labelled logfile data for CPS, we applied latent class analyses to identify the behaviour patterns of the students in the exploration phase of the problem-solving process. The model fits for the LCA analysis are listed in Table 2 . Compared with the 2 or 3 latent class models, the 4 latent class model has a lower AIC, BIC and aBIC, and the likelihood ratio statistical test (the Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test) confirmed it has a significantly better model fit. The 5 and 6 latent class models did not show a better model fit than the 4 latent class model. Therefore, based on the results, four qualitatively different exploration strategy profiles can be distinguished, which covered 96% of the students.

Fit indices for latent class analyses.

The patterns for the four qualitatively different exploration strategy profiles are shown in Figure 6 . In total, 84.3% of the students were proficient exploration strategy users, who were able to use VOTAT in each problem scenario independent of its difficulty level (represented by the red line in Figure 5 ). In total, 6.2% of the students were rapid learners. They were not able to apply VOTAT at the beginning of the test on the easiest problems but managed to learn quickly, and, after a rapid learning curve by the end of the test, they reached the level of proficient exploration strategy users, even though the problems became much more complex (represented by the blue line). In total, 3.1% of the students proved to be non-persistent explorers, and they employed VOTAT on the easiest problems but did not transfer this knowledge to the more complex problems. Finally, they were no longer able to apply VOTAT when the complexity of the problems increased (represented by the green line). In total, 6.5% of the students were non-performing explorers; they barely used any VOTAT strategy during the whole test (represented by the pink line) independent of problem complexity.

Four qualitatively different exploration strategy profiles.

4.3. Better Exploration Strategy Users Showed Better Performance in Reasoning Skills

Students with different exploration strategy profiles showed different kinds of performance in each reasoning skill under investigation. Results (see Table 3 ) showed that more proficient strategy users tended to have higher achievement in all the domains assessed as well as in the two sub-dimensions in CPS (i.e., KAC and KAP; ANOVA: CPS: F(3, 1339) = 187.28, p < 0.001; KAC: F(3, 1339) = 237.15, p < 0.001; KAP: F(3, 1339) = 74.91, p < 0.001; IR: F(3, 1339) = 48.10, p < 0.001; CR: F(3, 1339) = 28.72, p < 0.001); specifically, students identified as “proficient exploration strategy users” achieved the highest level on the reasoning skills tests independent of the domains. On average, they were followed by rapid learners, non-persistent explorers and, finally, non-performing explorers. Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed more details on the performance differences of students with different exploration profiles in each of the domains being measured. Proficient strategy users proved to be significantly more skilled in each of the reasoning domains. They were followed by rapid learners, who outperformed non-persistent explorers and non-performing explorers in CPS. In the domains of IR and CR, there were no achievement differences between rapid learners and non-persistent explorers, who significantly outperformed non-performing strategy explorers.

Students’ performance on each test—grouped according to the different exploration strategy profiles.

4.4. The Roles of IR and CR in CPS and Its Processes Were Different for Each Type of Exploration Strategy User

Path analysis was used to explore the predictive power of IR and CR for CPS and its processes, knowledge acquisition and knowledge application, for each group of students with different exploration strategy profiles. That is, four path analysis models were built to indicate the predictive power of IR and CR for CPS (see Figure 7 ), and another four path analyses models were developed to monitor the predictive power of IR and CR for the two empirically distinguishable phases of CPS (i.e., KAC and KAP) (see Figure 8 ). All eight models had good model fits, the fit indices TLI and CFI were above 0.90, and RMSEA was less than 0.08.

Path analysis models (with CPS, IR and CR) for each type of strategy user; * significant at 0.05 ( p   <  0.05); ** significant at 0.01 ( p   <  0.01); N.S.: no significant effect can be found.

Path analysis models (with KAC, KAP, IR and CR) for each type of strategy user; * significant at 0.05 ( p  <  0.05); ** significant at 0.01 ( p  <  0.01); N.S.: no significant effect can be found.

Students’ level of IR significantly predicted their level of CPS in all four path analysis models independent of their exploration strategy profile ( Figure 7 ; proficient strategy users: β = 0.432, p < 0.01; rapid learners: β = 0.350, p < 0.01; non-persistent explorers: β = 0.309, p < 0.05; and non-performing explorers: β = 0.386, p < 0.01). This was not the case for CR, which only proved to have predictive power for CPS among proficient strategy users (β = 0.104, p < 0.01). IR and CR were significantly correlated in all four models.

After examining the roles of IR and CR in the CPS process, we went further to explore the roles of these two reasoning skills in the distinguishable phases of CPS. The path analysis models ( Figure 8 ) showed that the predictive power of IR and CR for KAC and KAP was varied in each group. Levels of IR and CR among non-persistent explorers and non-performing explorers failed to predict their achievement in the KAC phase of the CPS process. Moreover, rapid learners’ level of IR significantly predicted their achievement in the KAC phase (β = 0.327, p < 0.01), but their level of CR did not have the same predictive power. Furthermore, the proficient strategy users’ levels of both reasoning skills had significant predictive power for KAC (IR: β = 0.363, p < 0.01; CR: β = 0.132, p < 0.01). In addition, in the KAP phase of the CPS problems, IR played a significant role for all types of strategy users, although with different power (proficient strategy users: β = 0.408, p < 0.01; rapid learners: β = 0.339, p < 0.01; non-persistent explorers: β = 0.361, p < 0.01; and non-performing explorers: β = 0.447, p < 0.01); by contrast, CR did not have significant predictive power for the KAP phase in any of the models.

5. Discussion

The study aims to investigate the role of IR and CR in CPS and its phases among students using statistically distinguishable exploration strategies in different CPS environments. We examined 1343 Hungarian university students and assessed their CPS, IR and CR skills. Both achievement data and logfile data were used in the analysis. The traditional achievement indicators formed the foundation for analysing the students’ CPS, CR and IR performance, whereas process data extracted from logfile data were used to explore students’ exploration behaviour in various CPS environments.

Four qualitatively different exploration strategy profiles were distinguished: proficient strategy users, rapid learners, non-persistent explorers and non-performing explorers (RQ1). The four profiles were consistent with the result of another study conducted at university level (see Molnár et al. 2022 ), and the frequencies of these four profiles in these two studies were very similar. The two studies therefore corroborate and validate each other’s results. The majority of the participants were identified as proficient strategy users. More than 80% of the university students were able to employ effective exploration strategies in various CPS environments. Of the remaining students, some performed poorly in exploration strategy use in the early part of the test (rapid learners), some in the last part (non-persistent explorers) and some throughout the test (non-performing explorers). However, students with these three exploration strategy profiles only constituted small portions of the total sample (with proportions ranging from 3.1% to 6.5%). The university students therefore exhibited generally good performance in terms of exploration strategy use in a CPS environment, especially compared with previous results among younger students (e.g., primary school students, see Greiff et al. 2018 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ; primary to secondary students, see Molnár and Csapó 2018 ).

The results have indicated that better exploration strategy users achieved higher CPS performance and had better development levels of IR and CR (RQ2). First, the results have confirmed the importance of VOTAT in a CPS environment. This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Greiff et al. 2015a ; Molnár and Csapó 2018 ; Mustafić et al. 2019 ; Wu and Molnár 2021 ). Second, the results have confirmed that effective use of VOTAT is strongly tied to the level of IR and CR development. Reasoning forms an important component of human intelligence, and the level of development in reasoning was an indicator of the level of intelligence ( Klauer et al. 2002 ; Sternberg and Kaufman 2011 ). Therefore, this finding has supplemented empirical evidence for the argument that effective use of VOTAT is associated with levels of intelligence to a certain extent.

The roles of IR and CR proved to be varied for each type of exploration strategy user (RQ3). For instance, the level of CPS among the best exploration strategy users (i.e., the proficient strategy users) was predicted by both the levels of IR and CR, but this was not the case for students with other profiles. In addition, the results have indicated that IR played important roles in both the KAC and KAP phases for the students with relatively good exploration strategy profiles (i.e., proficient strategy users and rapid learners) but only in the KAP phase for the rest of the students (non-persistent explorers and non-performing explorers); moreover, the predictive power of CR can only be detected in the KAC phase of the proficient strategy users. To sum up, the results suggest a general trend of IR and CR playing more important roles in the CPS process among better exploration strategy users.

Combining the answers to RQ2 and RQ3, we can gain further insights into students’ exploration strategy use in a CPS environment. Our results have confirmed that the use of VOTAT is associated with the level of IR and CR development and that the importance of IR and CR increases with proficiency in exploration strategy use. Based on these findings, we can make a reasonable argument that IR and CR are essential skills for using VOTAT and that underdeveloped IR and CR will prevent students from using effective strategies in a CPS environment. Therefore, if we want to encourage students to become better exploration strategy users, it is important to first enhance their IR and CR skills. Previous studies have suggested that establishing explicit training in using effective strategies in a CPS environment is important for students’ CPS development ( Molnár et al. 2022 ). Our findings have identified the importance of IR and CR in exploration strategy use, which has important implications for designing training programmes.

The results have also provided a basis for further studies. Future studies have been suggested to further link the behavioural and cognitive perspectives in CPS research. For instance, IR and CR were considered as component skills of CPS (see Section 1.2 ). The results of the study have indicated the possibility of not only discussing the roles of IR and CR in the cognitive process of CPS, but also exploration behaviour in a CPS environment. The results have thus provided a new perspective for exploring the component skills of CPS.

6. Limitations

There are some limitations in the study. All the tests were low stake; therefore, students might not be sufficiently motivated to do their best. This feature might have produced the missing values detected in the sample. In addition, some students’ exploration behaviour shown in this study might theoretically be below their true level. However, considering that data cleaning was adopted in this study (see Section 3.1 ), we believe this phenomenon will not have a remarkable influence on the results. Moreover, the CPS test in this study was based on the MicroDYN approach, which is a well-established and widely used artificial model with a limited number of variables and relations. However, it does not have the power to cover all kinds of complex and dynamic problems in real life. For instance, the MicroDYN approach cannot measure ill-defined problem solving. Thus, this study can only demonstrate the influence of IR and CR on problem solving in well-defined MicroDYN-simulated problems. Furthermore, VOTAT is helpful with minimally complex problems under well-defined laboratory conditions, but it may not be that helpful with real-world, ill-defined complex problems ( Dörner and Funke 2017 ; Funke 2021 ). Therefore, the generalizability of the findings is limited.

7. Conclusions

In general, the results have shed new light on students’ problem-solving behaviours in respect of exploration strategy in a CPS environment and explored differences in terms of the use of thinking skills between students with different exploration strategies. Most studies discuss students’ problem-solving strategies from a behavioural perspective. By contrast, this paper discusses them from both behavioural and cognitive perspectives, thus expanding our understanding in this area. As for educational implications, the study contributes to designing and revising training methods for CPS by identifying the importance of IR and CR in exploration behaviour in a CPS environment. To sum up, the study has investigated the nature of CPS from a fresh angle and provided a sound basis for future studies.

Funding Statement

This study has been conducted with support provided by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary, financed under the OTKA K135727 funding scheme and supported by the Research Programme for Public Education Development, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (KOZOKT2021-16).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.W. and G.M.; methodology, H.W. and G.M.; formal analysis, H.W.; writing—original draft preparation, H.W.; writing—review and editing, G.M.; project administration, G.M.; funding acquisition, G.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval was not required for this study in accordance with the national and institutional guidelines. The assessments which provided data for this study were integrated parts of the educational processes of the participating university. The participation was voluntary.

Informed Consent Statement

All of the students in the assessment turned 18, that is, it was not required or possible to request and obtain written informed parental consent from the participants.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Adey Philip, Csapó Benő. Developing and Assessing Scientific Reasoning. In: Csapó Benő, Szabó Gábor., editors. Framework for Diagnostic Assessment of Science. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó; Budapest: 2012. pp. 17–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Batanero Carmen, Navarro-Pelayo Virginia, Godino Juan D. Effect of the implicit combinatorial model on combinatorial reasoning in secondary school pupils. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 1997; 32 :181–99. doi: 10.1023/A:1002954428327. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckmann Jens F., Guthke Jürgen. Complex problem solving, intelligence, and learning ability. In: Frensch Peter A., Funke Joachim., editors. Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective. Erlbaum; Hillsdale: 1995. pp. 177–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchner Axel. Basic topics and approaches to the study of complex problem solving. In: Frensch Peter A., Funke Joachim., editors. Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective. Erlbaum; Hillsdale: 1995. pp. 27–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Yunxiao, Li Xiaoou, Liu Jincheng, Ying Zhiliang. Statistical analysis of complex problem-solving process data: An event history analysis approach. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 10 :486. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00486. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Csapó Benő. A kombinatív képesség struktúrája és fejlődése. Akadémiai Kiadó; Budapest: 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Csapó Benő. The development of inductive reasoning: Cross-sectional assessments in an educational context. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 1997; 20 :609–26. doi: 10.1080/016502597385081. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Csapó Benő. Teaching and Learning Thinking Skills. Swets & Zeitlinger; Lisse: 1999. Improving thinking through the content of teaching; pp. 37–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Csapó Benő, Molnár Gyöngyvér. Online diagnostic assessment in support of personalized teaching and learning: The eDia System. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 10 :1522. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01522. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner Dietrich, Funke Joachim. Complex problem solving: What it is and what it is not. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8 :1153. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• English Lyn D. Combinatorics and the development of children’s combinatorial reasoning. In: Jones Graham A., editor. Exploring Probability in School: Challenges for Teaching and Learning. Springer; New York: 2005. pp. 121–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer Andreas, Greiff Samuel, Funke Joachim. The process of solving complex problems. Journal of Problem Solving. 2012; 4 :19–42. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1118. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frensch Peter A., Funke Joachim. Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective. Psychology Press; New York: 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke Joachim. Dynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement. Thinking and Reasoning. 2001; 7 :69–89. doi: 10.1080/13546780042000046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke Joachim. Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing. 2010; 11 :133–42. doi: 10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke Joachim. It Requires More Than Intelligence to Solve Consequential World Problems. Journal of Intelligence. 2021; 9 :38. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9030038. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke Joachim, Fischer Andreas, Holt Daniel V. Competencies for complexity: Problem solving in the twenty-first century. In: Care Esther, Griffin Patrick, Wilson Mark., editors. Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Springer; Dordrecht: 2018. pp. 41–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilhooly Kenneth J. Thinking: Directed, Undirected and Creative. Academic Press; London: 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gnaldi Michela, Bacci Silvia, Kunze Thiemo, Greiff Samuel. Students’ complex problem solving profiles. Psychometrika. 2020; 85 :469–501. doi: 10.1007/s11336-020-09709-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff Samuel, Funke Joachim. Measuring complex problem solving-the MicroDYN approach. In: Scheuermann Friedrich, Björnsson Julius., editors. The Transition to Computer-Based Assessment. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Luxembourg: 2009. pp. 157–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff Samuel, Holt Daniel V., Funke Joachim. Perspectives on problem solving in educational assessment: Analytical, interactive, and collaborative problem solving. Journal of Problem Solving. 2013; 5 :71–91. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1153. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff Samuel, Molnár Gyöngyvér, Martina Romain, Zimmermann Johannes, Csapó Benő. Students’ exploration strategies in computer-simulated complex problem environments: A latent class approach. Computers & Education. 2018; 126 :248–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff Samuel, Wüstenberg Sascha, Avvisati Francesco. Computer-generated log-file analyses as a window into students’ minds? A showcase study based on the PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving. Computers & Education. 2015a; 91 :92–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff Samuel, Wüstenberg Sascha, Funke Joachim. Dynamic problem solving: A new measurement perspective. Applied Psychological Measurement. 2012; 36 :189–213. doi: 10.1177/0146621612439620. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff Samuel, Wüstenberg Sascha, Csapó Benő, Demetriou Andreas, Hautamäki Jarkko, Graesser Arthur C., Martin Romain. Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review. 2014; 13 :74–83. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff Samuel, Wüstenberg Sascha, Goetz Thomas, Vainikainen Mari-Pauliina, Hautamäki Jarkko, Bornstein Marc H. A longitudinal study of higher-order thinking skills: Working memory and fluid reasoning in childhood enhance complex problem solving in adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015b; 6 :1060. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01060. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hołda Małgorzata, Głodek Anna, Dankiewicz-Berger Malwina, Skrzypińska Dagna, Szmigielska Barbara. Ill-defined problem solving does not benefit from daytime napping. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11 :559. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00559. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klauer Karl Josef. Paradigmatic teaching of inductive thinking. Learning and Instruction. 1990; 2 :23–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klauer Karl Josef, Willmes Klaus, Phye Gary D. Inducing inductive reasoning: Does it transfer to fluid intelligence? Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2002; 27 :1–25. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1079. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn Deanna. What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In: Goswami Usha., editor. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. Wiley-Blackwell; Oxford: 2010. pp. 371–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn Deanna, Garcia-Mila Merce, Zohar Anat, Andersen Christopher, Sheldon H. White, Klahr David, Carver Sharon M. Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1995; 60 :1–157. doi: 10.2307/1166059. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo Yungtai, Mendell Nancy R., Rubin Donald B. Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika. 2001; 88 :767–78. doi: 10.1093/biomet/88.3.767. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lotz Christin, Scherer Ronny, Greiff Samuel, Sparfeldt Jörn R. Intelligence in action—Effective strategic behaviors while solving complex problems. Intelligence. 2017; 64 :98–112. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2017.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer Richard E. Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science. 1998; 26 :49–63. doi: 10.1023/A:1003088013286. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnár Gyöngyvér, Csapó Benő. Az 1–11 évfolyamot átfogó induktív gondolkodás kompetenciaskála készítése a valószínűségi tesztelmélet alkalmazásával. Magyar Pedagógia. 2011; 111 :127–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnár Gyöngyvér, Csapó Benő. The efficacy and development of students’ problem-solving strategies during compulsory schooling: Logfile analyses. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9 :302. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00302. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnár Gyöngyvér, Alrababah Saleh Ahmad, Greiff Samuel. How we explore, interpret, and solve complex problems: A cross-national study of problem-solving processes. Heliyon. 2022; 8 :e08775. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08775. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnár Gyöngyvér, Greiff Samuel, Csapó Benő. Inductive reasoning, domain specific and complex problem solving: Relations and development. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2013; 9 :35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.03.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mousa Mojahed, Molnár Gyöngyvér. Computer-based training in math improves inductive reasoning of 9- to 11-year-old children. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 37 :100687. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100687. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mustafić Maida, Yu Jing, Stadler Matthias, Vainikainen Mari-Pauliina, Bornstein Marc H., Putnick Diane L., Greiff Samuel. Complex problem solving: Profiles and developmental paths revealed via latent transition analysis. Developmental Psychology. 2019; 55 :2090–101. doi: 10.1037/dev0000764. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén Linda K., Muthén Bengt O. Mplus User’s Guide. Muthén & Muthén; Los Angeles: 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newell Allen. Reasoning, Problem Solving, and Decision Processes: The Problem Space as a Fundamental Category. MIT Press; Boston: 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Novick Laura R., Bassok Miriam. Problem solving. In: Holyoak Keith James, Morrison Robert G., editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2005. pp. 321–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . PISA 2012 Field Trial Problem Solving Framework. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Results: Creative Problem Solving—Students’ Skills in Tackling Real-Life Problems (Volume V) OECD Publishing; Paris: 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pásztor Attila. Ph.D. thesis. Doctoral School of Education, University of Szeged; Szeged, Hungary: 2016. Technology-Based Assessment and Development of Inductive Reasoning. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pásztor Attila, Csapó Benő. Improving Combinatorial Reasoning through Inquiry-Based Science Learning; Paper presented at the Science and Mathematics Education Conference; Dublin, Ireland. June 24–25; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pásztor Attila, Kupiainen Sirkku, Hotulainen Risto, Molnár Gyöngyvér, Csapó Benő. Comparing Finnish and Hungarian Fourth Grade Students’ Inductive Reasoning Skills; Paper presented at the EARLI SIG 1 Conference; Helsinki, Finland. August 29–31; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandberg Elisabeth Hollister, McCullough Mary Beth. The development of reasoning skills. In: Sandberg Elisabeth Hollister, Spritz Becky L., editors. A Clinician’s Guide to Normal Cognitive Development in Childhood. Routledge; New York: 2010. pp. 179–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schraw Gregory, Dunkle Michael E., Bendixen Lisa D. Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1995; 9 :523–38. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350090605. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweizer Fabian, Wüstenberg Sascha, Greiff Samuel. Validity of the MicroDYN approach: Complex problem solving predicts school grades beyond working memory capacity. Learning and Individual Differences. 2013; 24 :42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stadler Matthias, Becker Nicolas, Gödker Markus, Leutner Detlev, Greiff Samuel. Complex problem solving and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Intelligence. 2015; 53 :92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J. Handbook of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press; New York: 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J., Kaufman Scott Barry. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• van de Schoot Rens, Lugtig Peter, Hox Joop. A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2012; 9 :486–92. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.686740. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vollmeyer Regina, Burns Bruce D., Holyoak Keith J. The impact of goal specificity on strategy use and the acquisition of problem structure. Cognitive Science. 1996; 20 :75–100. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2001_3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welter Marisete Maria, Jaarsveld Saskia, Lachmann Thomas. Problem space matters: The development of creativity and intelligence in primary school children. Creativity Research Journal. 2017; 29 :125–32. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1302769. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenke Dorit, Frensch Peter A., Funke Joachim. Complex Problem Solving and intelligence: Empirical relation and causal direction. In: Sternberg Robert J., Pretz Jean E., editors. Cognition and Intelligence: Identifying the Mechanisms of the Mind. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2005. pp. 160–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wittmann Werner W., Hattrup Keith. The relationship between performance in dynamic systems and intelligence. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 2004; 21 :393–409. doi: 10.1002/sres.653. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu Hao, Molnár Gyöngyvér. Interactive problem solving: Assessment and relations to combinatorial and inductive reasoning. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research. 2018; 26 :90–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu Hao, Molnár Gyöngyvér. Logfile analyses of successful and unsuccessful strategy use in complex problem-solving: A cross-national comparison study. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2021; 36 :1009–32. doi: 10.1007/s10212-020-00516-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu Hao, Saleh Andi Rahmat, Molnár Gyöngyvér. Inductive and combinatorial reasoning in international educational context: Assessment, measurement invariance, and latent mean differences. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2022; 23 :297–310. doi: 10.1007/s12564-022-09750-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüstenberg Sascha, Greiff Samuel, Funke Joachim. Complex problem solving—More than reasoning? Intelligence. 2012; 40 :1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüstenberg Sascha, Greiff Samuel, Molnár Gyöngyvér, Funke Joachim. Cross-national gender differences in complex problem solving and their determinants. Learning and Individual Differences. 2014; 29 :18–29. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Error message

Primary tabs.

• Log in (active tab)
• Reset your password
• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience