PROBLEM SOLVING AND

DECISION MAKING
COGNITION

Annu Tyagi, Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Psychology, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal
University,Jaunpur
[Type here]

THINKING
Sometimes people are seen talking to themselves. What are they actually doing?
Others infer that they are thinking. If we question such a person, he might say that
he was thinking ‘about something’, may be his wife, child, a friend, his job or
anything he has experienced or would like to experience. All of us keep thinking
most of the time, but normally, we do not talk out loud to ourselves while thinking.
This means that something is going on in our ‘minds’ most of the time, which can
only be experienced and not necessarily be observed by others.

Thought is sometimes regarded as evolution’s highest achievement and, indeed, as

defining the essence of human existence. It is the fascinating capacity to reason, to
solve problems, to create new ideas and concepts, which enable man to rise above
the demands of mere survival; to ponder what might be, as well as, to understand
what is.

Thinking is a complex multifaceted human phenomenon, and so the word “think”

is used to express different meanings. For example, ‘Can you think (remember) the
name of that boy’? ‘I think (believe or decide) I should not go to the party’, ‘To think
of (expect or anticipate) taking a bribe is shameful’, ‘I cannot think (imagine) that
he could be so naughty’, ‘He thinks (judges) very high of me’. All such uses if the
word “think” captures most of our cognitive functions.

Thinking is closely linked to other mental activities especially perception and

memory. Psychologists refer to these interrelated processes as cognition. The term
cognition is derived from a Latin word, which in English means “to get to know”. It
is an active word implying that the brain is more than just a clay tablet or a mere
three pounds of tissue matter which receives the marks of experience. The human
mind is almost constantly in action, solving problems, organising our ideas and
thoughts, and converting them into our normal spoken language. All these
activities are aspects of cognition, of knowledge in action. Thus, the study of
cognition focuses on processes people use to transform, reduce, elaborate, store,
recover, and put to sensory input.

Like learning and memory, cognition too cannot be directly observed. So, we have
to depend on indirect sources which help in inferring cognition. For example, if a
person is able to solve a problem quickly, has good reasoning capacity with some
1
[Type here]

creative and inventive aptitude, he is said to be intelligent. Much of the credit we

give to a person for being intelligent is based on the effectiveness with which that
person is able to apply cognitive processes in various situations. Once we have
learned certain facts or skills for that matter, we are able to apply them to various
new tasks.

Cognition is essentially a process of knowing. It encompasses thinking, decision

making, judging, imagining, problem solving, categorising, and reasoning, i.e., all
the higher mental processes of human beings. These diverse mental activities may
seem to be a jumble of various odd topics without any common elements. But a
common ground underlies them all, that is, they all depend on knowledge derived
from learning and memory.

Thinking is the crown jewel of cognition. It is spectacularly brilliant, in some people;

even sublime, among average folks; and, the fact that it happens at all, one of the
great wonders of our species. Thinking about thinking, what some call meta-
thinking, may seem an insurmountable task, since it seems to engage all of the
themes mentioned previously – the detection of external energy, neurophysiology,
perception, memory, language, imagery, and the developing person. Advances in
cognitive psychology, particularly within the last twenty years, have led to a
formidable arsenal of research techniques and theoretical models capable of
disclosing some of the facts about the thought and casting them in a plausible
framework of sound psychological theory.

The process of thinking consists of manipulation and interplay of symbolic

elements such as images, words and concepts to represent aspects of reality.
Sometimes, this interplay of symbolic elements may be directed and actively
controlled by the person, as in a specific problem solving situation. This is called
Realistic thinking. Here, the constraints of logic, evidence, and reality play a major
role, and the whole course of thinking is guided by the requirements of the
situation. Another type of thinking is the Autistic thinking. This is an extreme kind
of wishful thinking wholly dominated by one’s wants and feelings, with little or no
regard for reality. It is more a case of fantasy and imagination or day dreaming.

Many of the problems we face in our daily life require mere reproduction of the
solutions, which we have learned to arrive at in the past, under similar
circumstances. This is called Reproductive thinking, which is largely

2
[Type here]

understandable in terms of the processes of learning, memory and transfer. But,

the matter of the thinking process is most clearly revealed when we get to solve a
problem. The process of problem solving occurs whenever we encounter a barrier
or a gap between our present situation and a desired goal, but find that the mere
repetition of a preciously learned method does not enable us to reach that goal.
Such a kind of thinking is known as Productive thinking or creativity, which requires
the production of a new and original solution. An individual’s own problem solving
may be called creativity, whether or not that particular solution has been produced
previously by someone else. What matters more is, whether the problem and its
solution is novel for the individual. Problem solving represents a large portion of
those activities usually referred to as ‘thinking’, and indeed, the two terms may be
made synonyms by defining thinking as something which occurs when an individual
writes, talks, recognises or solves a problem.

 1. BASIC ELEMENTS OF THOUGHT

• UNITS OF THOUGHT
Images, words and concepts are the three most significant building blocks of our
thoughts.
(a) Images
Normally, we think of images as being visual or pictorial, but they can also be in
the forms of taste, touch, smell and sound. When we think of a friend, we get
auditory image of the voice or visual image of the gait 1. Albeit, we use more than
one of our senses in forming images, but images associated with different
senses are not recalled with equal intensities (Lindsay & Norman, 1977). It has
been found that visual, spatial and moving images are experienced most
strongly, while images of sounds, taste, touch and smell, touch and smell are
not experienced clearly or frequently. Roe (1951) found that physical scientists
are more apt to think in visual images (pictures, diagrams), while social scientists
think more in auditory (words, sounds). Similarly, images in black and white are
frequently experienced, but coloured images are only sometimes reported:
Thus, it is clear that an image is our recollection or reconstruction of sensory
experience. However, it may not contain the recall of actual objects or
sensations. We have heard people recalling dreams or hallucinations. Images
could be concrete or abstract, vivid or dim, may fade with time or grow stronger.
Vividness of images is largely governed by the variables of persons and

1
Gait – Body movement as in the way of walking

3
[Type here]

situations. The most explicit and elaborate of all images is the eidetic image
(photographic memory).

The process of thinking, whether directed or undirected, frequently involves a

continuous flow, manipulations, or interplay of images and other symbolic
elements. Organisations of elements are combined, constructed, destroyed and
reassembled. Such organisations and reconstructions of elements permit us to
discover new solutions to puzzling problems. There was controversy as to
whether people could think without images (imageless thoughts). A positive
role of imagery in thinking has been established with the argument that people
do have images in thinking, but there may be lapses in proper reporting that
creates the doubt expressed in the controversy mentioned above. Some people
find a graph or a schematic diagram helpful while trying to understand a difficult
concept or relation. But for a few others, the visual information provided by a
graph has to be converted into verbal information to be meaningful to them. All
the people having these two very different views are capable of understanding
the data or the problem given, but they code the data differently. One group
uses the code of visual elements, while the other uses the non-visual code. This
difference in the usage of symbolic elements may have significant consequences
in the thinking and problem solving behaviour of these people.

(b) Concepts
(c) Language
(d) CONCEPT FORMATION
If we ask a student in the class, what different objects does he/she notice in the
room, his probable answer may be ‘chairs’, ‘books’, ‘blackboard’ etc. The nature of
his response illustrates an important ingredient of human cognition. Although the
world consists of a spectrum of objects and events, we tend to simplify and
organise our surrounding by classifying together things which exhibit common
features. The mental constructs which enable us to make such classifications are
called concepts (Anglin, 1977). In other words, we simplify things by organising
specific items into general cognitive categories and these mental groupings are
called concepts. The mind reduces its work by grouping similar events and objects
under the heading of a single concept. For example, an object having a trunk,
branches and leaves is called a ‘tree’.

4
[Type here]

Concepts provide much information with a minimum of cognitive effort. And this is
why we consider concepts as the basic building blocks of thought. Organising
concepts into hierarchies further simplifies the process. The earliest naturalists
sought to simplify and put into order the overwhelming complexity of some five
million species of living organisms by clustering them into two basic categories
namely the ‘Plant’ and ‘Animal’ kingdoms, and then further subdividing them into
smaller categories in order to make the world easier to deal with by grouping
similar kinds of information into manageable units.

Concept formation (or concept learning) refers to the discernment of the

properties common to a class of objects or ideas. Concept formation is more limited
in scope than thinking and seems readily susceptible to experimental analysis. The
early definition of concept was “mental images, ideas, or processes”. For our
purposes a concept may be defined in terms of certain critical features and the
rules that relate those features. Features, as used here, are characteristics of an
object or event that are also characteristic of other objects or events. A distinction
between features can be made on the quantitative basis as well as on the
qualitative basis. Mobility is a qualitative feature that can also be measured
quantitatively. Your Ford Escort automobile may have mobility (a qualitative
statement) but may not have as much mobility as someone else’s Honda City. Thus
both dimensional (quantitative) features and attributional (qualitative) features
enter into conceptual formation; both kinds are investigated.

Learning Concepts:
No human is born with a readymade stock of concepts. All of us acquire them
gradually, and these reflect our knowledge about the world. Concepts are learned
by direct teaching or by observation. In either of these processes, we learn things
because our elders describe, narrate or portray them before us. A young child
learns to recognise a dog and further differentiate it from a cat. The baby builds up
an internal schema of the features which accompany the category ‘dog’ and
gradually learn to apply the term dog correctly for the animals belonging to the
same family and also to distinguish from a cat or cow or horse. These steps
accomplished the baby abstracts (draws out) the relevant features of the concept
‘dog’ from the various instances and non-instances of that concept. The child now
has learned the concept because of the suggestions and the information we
provided.

5
[Type here]

Mostly we construct our own concepts by observing the instances (and non-
instances) and not by having others to explain or narrate the concept to us. It is also
possible that a baby who finds a cat intriguing learns to differentiate it from a dog
all by himself, recognising all the salient features in size and structures (may be also
differentiating the distinct sounds produced by the two). Thus, in thinking concepts
can serve to generalise, to differentiate, or to abstract. Experience and awareness
contribute significantly to the process of concept formation.

• ASSOCIATION
The oldest and most influential theory in learning is the principle of association –
associationism. In its most succinct form, the principle holds that a bond will be
formed between two events as those events are repeatedly presented together.
Reinforcement, or a reward system, facilitates formation of the bond. The basic
model of the principle postulates that the learning of a concept is a result of:
1. Reinforcing the correct pairing of a stimulus (for example, red boxes) with
the response of identifying it as a concept;
2. Non-reinforcement (a form of punishment) the incorrect pairing of a
stimulus (for example, red circles) with a response of identifying it as a
concept.
(Such mechanistic viewpoints leave little room for the concept – prevalent among
modern cognitive theorists – of internal structures that select, organise, and
transform information.)

• HYPOTHESIS TESTING
The general notion, that people sometimes solve problems and form concepts by
formulating and testing hypotheses has long been held in experimental psychology.
The direct application of a hypothesis-testing model to concept learning by Bruner,
Goodnow, and Austin (1956) in their book, A Study of Thinking, introduced a
thorough methodological analysis of performance.

The initial stage in concept attainment is the selection of hypothesis or a strategy

that is consistent with the objectives of our inquiry. The prime question is “What
us to be gained by choosing one order as compared to another order of testing
instances?” The first thing to be gained is, of course, an opportunity to obtain

6
[Type here]

information appropriate to the objectives of one’s inquiry. One may wish to choose
an instance at any given point in concept attainment that can tell one the most
about what the concept might be. To sum up, controlling the order of instances
tested is to increase or decrease the cognitive strain involved in assimilating
information. A well-contrived order of choice – a good “selection strategy” – makes
it easier to keep track of what hypotheses have been found tenable or untenable
on the basis of information encountered. A third advantage is not at first obvious.
By following a certain order of selecting instances for testing one controls the
degree of risk involved....

In a typical experiment, Bruner and his associates presented an entire concept

universe (that is, all possible variations on a number of dimensions and attributes)
to subjects and indicated one instance of an exemplar of the concept that the
subjects were to attain. The subjects would pick one of the other instances, be told
whether it was a positive or negative instance, then pick another instance, and so
on until they attained the criterion (identified the concept).

The strategies subjects may select in concept formation include scanning and
focusing each of which has its subtypes as follows:
Simultaneous Scanning – subjects start with all possible hypotheses and eliminate
the untenable ones.

Successive Scanning – subjects begin with a single hypothesis, maintain it if

successful, and, where it is unsuccessful, may change it to another that is based on
all previous experience.

Conservative Focusing – subjects formulate a hypothesis, select a positive instance

of it as a focus, and then make a sequence of reformulations (each of which changes
only one feature), noting each time which turns out to be positive and which
negative.

Focus Gambling is characterised by changing more than one feature at a time.

Although the conservative-focusing technique is methodological and likely to lead
to a valid concept, subjects may opt for a gamble in the expectation that they may
determine the concept more quickly.
Of the strategies defined above, conservative focusing tends to be the most
effective (Bourne, 1963); scanning techniques give only a marginal success. A

7
[Type here]

difficulty with the Bruner model is that it assumes that subjects hold to a single
strategy, when, in actuality, some vacillate, shifting from strategy to strategy
throughout the task.

 2. REASONING
• LOGIC:
Thought or thinking refers to the general process of considering an issue in the
mind, while logic is the science of thinking. Although two people may think about
the same thing, their conclusions – both reached through thought – may differ, one
being logical, the other illogical.

Thinking and logic has been the subject of speculation for a long time. More than
two thousand years ago, Aristotle introduced a system of reasoning or of validating
arguments that is called the syllogism. A syllogism has three steps – a major
premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion, in that order.

Major All men Middle term (M) are mortal Predicate (P).
Premise

Minor Socrates Subject(S) is a man.

Premise

Conclusion Therefore, Socrates Subject(S) is mortal.

A conclusion reached by means of syllogistic reasoning is considered valid, or true,

if the premises are accurate and the form is correct. It is therefore possible to use
syllogistic logic for the validation of arguments. Illogical conclusions can be
determined and their cause isolated. This is a succinct statement of the theoretical
basis of much current research on thinking and logic.

• INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION

Induction – induction, in logic, the process of reasoning from the particular to the
general. Francis Bacon proposed induction as the logic of scientific discovery and
deduction as the logic of argumentation.

8
[Type here]

Deduction – in logic:
1. Traditionally, it is the process of drawing, by reasoning, particular
conclusions from more general principles assumed to be true. The
Aristotelian Syllogism is the classic example of deductive logic in the
tradition.
2. In contemporary logic, any statement derived by a transformed rule upon an
axiom; more generally, the term now refers to a process of deriving
theorems from axioms, or conclusions from premises, by formal rules
(transformational rules).

• INFERENCES AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING

If Bill is taller than Jeff and Jeff is shorter than Ryan, then is Bill taller than Ryan?
Take a moment and figure this out. Some people work out this problem (which, of
course, has no definitive conclusion) by drawing little figures in which the relative
height of the Bill, Jeff and Ryan are depicted.

Your conclusion was reached through a process of reasoning called deductive

reasoning which is the logical technique in which particular conclusions are drawn
from more general principles. Johnson-Laird (1995) has identified four main issues
in the cognitive study of deductive logic.

1. Relational inferences based on the logical properties of such relations as

greater than, on the right of, and after. (In the case of Bill et al. you had to
use a “greater than” logic.)

2. Propositional inferences based on negation and on such connectives as if, or,

and and. (for example, you might rephrase the above problem as “If Bill is
taller....”.)

3. Syllogisms based on pairs of premises that each contains a single qualifier,

such as all or some. (in the next section we will study syllogisms that have
such qualifiers, such as, “All psychologists are brilliant; some psychologists
wear glasses....”.)

9
[Type here]

4. Multiplying of quantified inferences based on premises containing more than

one qualifier, such as Some French poodles are more expensive than any
other type of dog.

These four models, or contingencies involved in decision making, have been

formalised by logicians into a type of predicate calcus (viz. that branch of symbolic
logic that deals with relations between propositions and their internal structure –
symbols are used to represent the subject and predicate of a proposition).

• SYLLOGISTIC REASONING
(refer to book, Solso)

• SOME SOURCES OF ERROR

If human reasoning was based on logic, then it would be an entirely domain
independent process. However, that is not to say that we would expect no
influence of problem content or context. Logicist authors have argued that there is
an interpretative process in which the particular problem content must be
translated into an underlying abstract form before logical processes can be applied.
If participants in the experiment represent the premises of an argument in a
different manner to that expected by the experimenter, then they may be classified
as making errors even though the process of reasoning was logical. For example,
someone given the statement “Some students live in hostel accommodation”
might draw the conclusion that “Some students do not live in hostel
accommodation”. This could be classified as a logical fallacy because “some” does
not exclude “all.” It is perfectly reasonable for people to represent “some” as
meaning “some but not all,” as indeed they do.

 The role of Mood States

Research on how moods alter both judgement and processing informs research on
how moods alter information seeking. For instance, research on mood and
judgements sheds light on how mood might alter the acquisition of competency-

10
[Type here]

assessment information. When individuals judge whether they have the

competency to do a task, sad moods confer more negative information about one’s
competency than do happy moods.

 The role of Beliefs

Over the years, however, the role of knowledge and belief in deductive reasoning
tasks has proved so influential hat many researchers have abandoned logic as both
a descriptive and a normative theory of human reasoning. For example, it has been
suggested that:
 People may reason using heuristics that help to maximise information gain

 People treat reasoning problems as decision-making tasks in which personal

goals and utilities come into play

 Reasoning is governed by principles of pragmatic relevance

 People reason using domain-specific processes resulting from innate

reasoning modules.

The influence of prior knowledge considers some the arguments on:

- Influence of pragmatic factors in conditional reasoning
- Belief-bias effect in syllogistic reasoning

 The Confirmation Bias: Searching for Positive Evidence

One of the most pervasive topics in the cognitive psychology of science has been
the tendency to selectively look for and latch onto evidence that confirms our
theory and to deny, distort, or dismiss evidence that contradicts it. One the first to
put confirmation bias on the front burner of the cognitive psychology was Peter
Wason.

 3. PROBLEM SOLVING
The process of thinking consists of the manipulation and interplay of symbolic
elements, such as, images, words and concepts to represent various aspects of
reality. In such realistic thinking, the constraints of logic, evidence, and reality play
as a major role and the whole course of thinking is guided by the requirements of

11
[Type here]

the objective situation. This type of directed thinking is obviously useful and
adaptive. Viewed in this adaptive context, we should expect the nature of the
thinking process to be most clearly revealed when we set about to solve a problem.
Problem solving occurs whenever we encounter a barrier or a gap between the
present situation and a desired goal, but find that the mere repetition of a
previously learned method does not enable us to reach the goal. Many of the
problems we face in our daily life conveniently require nothing more than
reproducing what we have learned to do in the past in similar situations. Such
reproductive thinking can be explained in terms of the processes of learning,
memory and transfer.

Problem solving differs from reasoning. Whereas reasoning requires us to follow

one particular logical chain to answer a question problem solving depends, to a
great extent, on the nature of the problem. But productive thinking requires the
production of original and new solutions. Here, the problem solving involves those
skills that can cope with novel situations for which there is no well learned
response. All of us are continuously involved in problem solving. Some problems
are simple and unstructured, but others may be complex and difficult. In cases of
ill-defined problems such as writing a good story or designing a beautiful house,
there are no agreed-on steps or rules that will produce a product generally
accepted as a solution. By contrast well defined problems such as of mathematics
or logic, have a clear structure; there is always a clear standard for deciding
whether the problem has been solved or not. In laboratories, psychologists
generally study how people solve well defined problems because such problems
have built-in criteria by which the solution can be evaluated. Psychologists also try
to understand how people solve problems and what are the elementary reasoning
strategies used in solving problems.

• PREPARATION
For the purpose of analysis, psychologists sometimes divide the solutions of well
defined, low knowledge problems into four partly overlapping stages:
1. Understanding the problem
No single aspect of problem solving has a greater impact on the speed and
likelihood of a correct solution than how the problem is initially interpreted. The
same problem can often be represented in several different ways, and some
representations bring a solution to the minds more readily than others. The

12
[Type here]

game of numbers, scrabbles, tic-tac-toe (Xs and Os), where we try to connect all
elements in a row, column or the diagonal arm may be the examples.

2. & 3. Solution plan and Strategies

Several different strategies can be used for solving problems. A person’s
conception of the possible moves is known as the problem space. Problem
spaces can characterise people’s behaviour in solving such problems as proving
theorems in logic, making mathematical derivations, and playing games like
chess or checkers. Each time a move is made, the person is seen as moving from
one “problem state” to another.

 Kinds of Problems
 Representing and Organising the Problem

• PRODUCTION: GENERATING SOLUTIONS

1. Trial & Error – when the possible solutions to a problem are few, we may
solve it through trial and error. Whenever we are out in a new situation, we
try to understand it only through trial and error. For example, a new TV set,
we tend to play around with the buttons. Trial and error is the most basic
problem solving strategy. It usually involves a more or less random series of
different actions when there is no way of knowing what substances would
work as a light bulb filament.

2. Hypothesis testing – closely related to the above method is hypothesis

testing. Example, very close to our experience is power failure, suppose we
enter our home and find no current, we shall check the main switch and if no
fault is found we might check with the neighbours if they have, we shall check
our main switch again to rectify the probable fault with the fuse wire. What
we do here is that we try many possible alternatives. We entertain a series
of hypotheses about the problem in a systematic and structured way. We
eliminate each hypothesis using this testing method of possible hypotheses,
stored in the memory, each of which could account for the situation. We
should also be able to take appropriate action to test and eliminate the
hypothesis.

3. Algorithms – some problems can be solved by a strategy called algorithm, a

precisely stated set of rules which usually works for solving problems of a

13
[Type here]

particular type. This strategy too, was proposed by the problem solving
experts, Newell & Simon (1972). This is a logical, methodological, stepwise
procedure. Actually it originated in the field of mathematics, such as routines
for subtraction, for long division, for solving sets of linear equations and so
on. This concept has since been applied to other types of problems also.

The difficulty with the ‘generate-and-test’ algorithm is that for any

reasonably interesting problem, the number of moves that must be
considered is astronomically large. In chess, for example, it is estimated that
the problem space of all possible sequences of moves has close to 10120
branches; obviously no one could begin to examine more than the barest
fraction of such an enormous problem space possibilities. Therefore, the use
of algorithms is not always practical. Suppose we are given a task to arrange
the letters koknc to form an English word. An algorithmic solution would be
to arrange the letters systematically in all possible ways until a menaningful
combination appears, obviously it would be a time consuming procedure,
because there can be 120 possible combinations of these five letters. Most
people therefore, would follow a short cut strategy. They would focus on the
letter combinations likely to appear in English, such as Kn at the beginning of
a word or ck at the end. Using this approach, they would probably discover
the word __________ quite quickly (Dominoski & Loftus, 1979).

4. Heuristics – algorithms are not suitable for most of our problems primarily
because we do not have the time required in such techniques. A rule of the
thumb, short cut problem solving strategy, as already mentioned for ‘knock’;
can be called heuristic method – search method that relies on plausible
guesses about likely solution paths. Normally, we use it in complex
situations. Though it does not guarantee solution in all cases, it is certainly
very useful in reaching a solution. The heuristics used for solving anagrams
(scrambled word problem) or coded messages are very specific to such
problems. All of us have a repertoire of these strategies based on bits of
knowledge we have picked up, rules we have learned, or hypotheses which
have worked for us in the past. We come across people saying “I am
reminded of a similar problem” or “it might be done the way I did for so and
so”, while solving a problem.

14
[Type here]

Another heuristic, often very useful, is to break a larger problem into sub
goals. Sub goal analysis, of course, is not the only problem solving strategy
people adopt. Another general heuristic, often applied to problems with a
very specific goal, is often means-end analysis. It involves comparing one’s
current position with a desired end position and then trying to find a means
of closing the gap between the two. For example, suppose the vehicle on
which a student goes to the college develops some trouble and he has very
little time left to reach the college. The means-end analysis method will tell
him what would be the right decision to cover the distance left, considering
the time in hand – walking, running or hiring some other vehicle. He
“searches through the problem space” some solution by considering other
means of transportation.

A special form of means-end analysis consists of devising a plan by working

backward from the goal state. Suppose someone wants to buy a house. He
does not have enough money, but the need is so pressing that unless he
acquires one he would be on the streets. He plans to do a part-time job (a
first step towards the fulfilment of the goal) for six months to add the
remuneration from it to his present salary and meet the cost of the house. It
is a common reasoning strategy to work backwards for reducing the
difference between the goal and the current position. By reasoning
backward from a distant goal, the solver can reach the first step to be taken
immediately.

Another good strategy may be in the form of problem reduction. We break

a large problem into a number of smaller problems, easier to handle or
within our power to solve. Architects use this strategy in designing building.
The standard way to proceed is by progressive deepening; planning at a
general level (no. of rooms) before planning at a level of greater details (no.
and locations of tiles or marbles).

Sometimes a good strategy for attacking a large problem is to begin by

solving a similar but smaller problem within called simplification, in order to
generalise the method of solution for the larger original problem. Anderson
(1980) has suggested a good example of problems simplification. If one has
to plan a party for one hundred people, he should first plan on a small group
successfully and then enlarge it on a desired number.

15
[Type here]

5. Analogy – another very significant and powerful strategy frequently used in

problem solving is one in which the solver draws an analogy between the
current problem and a problem from a different but familiar domain having
a similar logical structure (Glass, Holyoak & Santa, 1979). In an analogy, a
parallel is drawn between the two systems whose parts are interrelated in a
similar way. For example, the flow of electric current through a circuit is
somewhat analogous to the flow of water through pipes in a house. The
motion of electrons around the nucleus of an atom is somewhat analogous
to the motion of planets revolving round the sun. Textbooks often give an
incomprehensive abstract description of the concept of a new concept and
then follow it with several worked out problems as examples.

6. Insight – all problems are not necessarily solved by systematic step by step
ways like those described above. Often a crucial insight is needed to solve a
problem. It is a vision of how all parts fit together, or how to represent the
problem differently. In other words, insights are sudden (flashes of
inspiration) that allows us to solve a problem, often in novel ways. ‘Eureka’
or ‘Aha’ is indicative of the feeling of insight when all the different elements
of a problem suddenly come together. This experience can come at the end
of a directed process of hypothesis testing, or seemingly, all at once. The
insight is usually visual and seems to consist of a simultaneous vision of the
total problem.

• JUDGMENT
The last component of problem solving is evaluating the quality of the proposed
solution. While solving a well-defined problem, we often come to know
immediately whether our answer is correct or not. For these problems, verifying
the solution is a trivial and obvious procedure. But with the ill-defined problems
having no strict criteria for a good solution, evaluation of a proposed solution may
be a major task. Not all problem solving efforts result in achieving successful
solutions. If the problem has not been fully grasped and no clue has been found to
eliminate various alternatives, the solution attempts become chaotic. A
satisfactory solution is one in which the problem solver successfully combines
experience and imagination to come up with a workable idea. After our assessment
of the situation, we begin to form a number of hypotheses about the possible

16
[Type here]

causes of the problem and then attempt to evaluate the evidences supporting or
contradicting these hypotheses.

At the end, it is essential to mention that the steps for problem solving do not
always require equal attention. Sometimes, they may run together. Often people
trying to find a solution begin suggesting options almost immediately. It has been
observed quite often that id someone talks about his trouble (may be a stomach
disorder or any other health problem) most of us will come up with some or other
suggestion for treatment confidently. Occasionally, the number of attractive
options is small and the final step is simple. Often, however, people encounter
snags in reaching an effective solution.

• IMPEDIMENTS TO SOLUTION or FACTORS AFFECTING PROBLEM SOLVING

Problem solving is susceptible to many influences other than simply the problem
itself.

1. Emotional and motivational factors

We have already understood individual differences in our entire functioning.
Here, we are not interested in giving an account of those factors which are in
the shape of traits, but are transitory or state factors. For example, anxiety,
aggression or frustration resulting from the problem solving process itself or
from other sources in our life at that time. If these emotions are present to any
noticeable extent, they are sure to hamper our solution process, severe anxiety
is sometimes helpful in increasing the performance, but it must not cross the
desirable limit. Frustration and conflict of any kind also negatively influence our
performance,

2. Attention span
It also limits our ability to solve problems. Lindsay & Norman (1977) point out,
if we try to plan out our whole strategy ahead of time, we cannot even play the
simple game of tic-tact-toe. We shall find it impossible to keep in mind all the
combinations of possible moves and countermoves involved in the game. The
problem solving strategies we have discussed are in part designed to keep the
problem down to workable size. But, in addition, we rely on external aids, as
well as memory aids. Memory aids provide ways of structuring a large amount

17
[Type here]

of knowledge, so that they can be easily stored in the long-term memory and
retrieved when needed.

3. Past experience
Past experiences have a powerful influence on problem solving. If the present
problem is identical or even similar to an earlier problem and the objects used
to achieve the goal in the earlier one are at hand, the past experience is cued
from memory and the old solution is simply repeated. This use of old knowledge
in new situations amounts to ‘positive transfer’ of learning. The example of
power failure cited earlier can be recalled here. Whatever we attempt to do is
very much the outcome of previous learning of the consequences of problem
solving.

The transfer of relevant past experiences generally speeds up the solution of a

current problem. But the transfer is not always positive. Sometimes, our past
training leads us to such approaches to new problems that are actually
detrimental. We may have false presuppositions or hidden assumptions about
the situation. When we automatically apply an inappropriate strategy to a
problem and cling rigidly to it, we are hampered by fixation. Fixations can inhibit
or prevent successful solutions.

4. Confirmation bias
One of the major obstacles to problem solving is our natural tendency to search
for information which confirms our hypothesis, a phenomenon known as the
confirmation bias.

5. Social factors
Sometimes it has been observed that if a problem is being solved in a social
situation, the situation itself militates against successful solution. Either the
solution would be in shape of conformity or complete withdrawal. The fear of
looking by taking a risk, usually goes with not wanting to be different. Many
people hold back inventive ideas because they are afraid that others may
consider it outlandish or inappropriate.

There may be other factors also affecting problem solving, such as complexity
of the outcome, the degree to which the solution is conceptualised and the kind
of resources which are available.

18
[Type here]

• CREATIVITY AND PROBLEM SOLVING

Creativity has been defined as the ability to produce ideas which are both novel
and valuable.

The creative process involves the following:

1. Preparation

2. Incubation

3. Illumination

4. Verification

Reference Book:
 Linden, David J. (2007). The Accidental Mind. Harvard University Press,
United States of America.
 Solso, Robert L. (2001). Cognitive Psychology, Sixth Edition. Published by
Dorling Kindersley (India).
 D’Amato, M. R. (1970). Experimental Psychology: Psychophysics, and
Learning. Published by Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, Delhi,
India.
 Hayes, N. (2000). Foundations of Psychology, 3rd Edition. Thomson Learning,
London, UK.
 Baddeley, A., Eyenck, M. W. and Anderson, M. C. (2009). Memory. Published
by Psychology Press, UK.
 Feldman, R. S. (2002). Understanding Psychology, Sixth Edition. Published by
Tata McGraw Hill Education Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
 Camille B. Wortman and Elizabeth F. Loftus (1981). Chapter 9: Language and
its development in Psychology. Published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York:
USA.
 Nolen-Hoeksema, Fredrickson, Loftus and Wagenar (2009).Atkinson &
Hilgard’s Psychology: An Introduction. Published by Cengage Learning India
Private Limited, New Delhi: India.

19
[Type here]

20