Experiment-2

Problem Solving

Aim: The purpose of this experiment is to investigate Einstellung effect

on the problem solving ability of the participants.

Introduction
Problem solving
The term problem-solving refers to the mental process that people go through to
discover, analyse, and solve problems.1 The steps in the. problem process includes:
 The discovery of the problem
 The decision to tackle the issue
 Understanding the problem
 Researching the available options
 Taking actions to achieve your goals
Before problem-solving can occur, it is important to first understand the exact nature of the
problem itself. If your understanding of the issue is faulty, your attempts to resolve it will
also be incorrect or flawed.

Problem-Solving Mental Processes

There are a number of mental processes at work during problem-solving. These include:
 Perceptually recognizing a problem
 Representing the problem in memory
 Considering relevant information that applies to the current problem
 Identify different aspects of the problem
 Labelling and describing the problem

Problem-Solving Strategies
There are several different ways that people go about solving a problem. Some of these
strategies might be used on their own, but people may also employ a range of approaches to
figuring out and fixing a problem.

Algorithms
An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure that will always produce the correct solution. A
mathematical formula is a good example of a problem-solving algorithm.
While an algorithm guarantees an accurate answer, it is not always the best approach to
problem-solving.
This strategy is not practical for many situations because it can be so time-consuming. For
example, if you were trying to figure out all of the possible number combinations to a lock
using an algorithm, it would take a very long time.

Heuristics
A heuristic is a mental rule-of-thumb strategy that may or may not work in certain situations.
Unlike algorithms, heuristics do not always guarantee a correct solution.
However, using this problem-solving strategy does allow people to simplify complex
problems and reduce the total number of possible solutions to a more manageable set.2
Trial and Error
A trial-and-error approach to problem-solving involves trying a number of different solutions
and ruling out those that do not work. This approach can be a good option if you have a very
limited number of options available.
If there are many different choices, you are better off narrowing down the possible options
using another problem-solving technique before attempting trial-and-error.

Insight
In some cases, the solution to a problem can appear as a sudden insight. This can occur
because you realize that the problem is actually similar to something that you have dealt with
in the past. However, the underlying mental processes that lead to insight happen outside of
awareness.

Obstacles in Problem-Solving
Of course, problem-solving is not a flawless process. There are a number of different
obstacles that can interfere with our ability to solve a problem quickly and efficiently.
Researchers have described a number of these mental obstacles, which include functional
fixedness, irrelevant information, and assumptions.
 Assumptions: When dealing with a problem, people often make assumptions about the
constraints and obstacles that prevent certain solutions.

 Functional fixedness: This term refers to the tendency to view problems only in their
customary manner.3 Functional fixedness prevents people from fully seeing all of the different
options that might be available to find a solution.

 Irrelevant or misleading information: When you are trying to solve a problem, it is

important to distinguish between information that is relevant to the issue and irrelevant data that
can lead to faulty solutions. When a problem is very complex, the easier it is to focus on
misleading or irrelevant information.

 Mental set: A mental set is the tendency people have to only use solutions that have worked
in the past rather than looking for alternative ideas. A mental set can often work as a heuristic,
making it a useful problem-solving tool. However, mental sets can also lead to inflexibility,
making it more difficult to find effective

Einstellung literally means "setting" or "installation" as well as a person's "attitude" in

German. Related to Einstellung is what is referred to as an Aufgabe ("task" in German). The
Aufgabe is the situation which could potentially invoke the Einstellung effect. It is a task
which creates a tendency to execute a previously applicable behaviour. In
the Luchins and Luchins experiment a water jar problem served as the Aufgabe, or task.
The Einstellung effect occurs when a person is presented with a problem or situation that
is similar to problems they have worked through in the past. If the solution (or
appropriate behaviour) to the problem/situation has been the same in each past experience,
the person will likely provide that same response, without giving the problem too much
thought, even though a more appropriate response might be available. Essentially,
the Einstellung effect is one of the human brain's ways of finding an appropriate
solution/behaviour as efficiently as possible. The detail is that though finding the solution is
efficient, the solution itself is not or might not be.

Einstellung effect
Einstellung refers to a person's predisposition to solve a given problem in a specific manner even
though better or more appropriate methods of solving the problem exist. The Einstellung effect is the
negative effect of previous experience when solving new problems.

Lunchins water jar experiment

The water jar test, first described in Abraham Luchins 1942 classic experiment, is a
commonly cited example of an Einstellung situation. The experiment's participants were
given the following problem: you have 3 water jars, each with the capacity to hold a different,
fixed amount of water; figure out how to measure a certain amount of water using these jars.
It was found that subjects used methods that they had used previously to find the solution
even though there were quicker and more efficient methods available. The experiment shines
light on how mental sets can hinder the solving of novel problems.
In Luchins experiment, subjects were divided into two groups. The experimental group was
given five practice problems, followed by 4 critical test problems. The control group did not
have the five practice problems. All of the practice problems and some of the critical
problems had only one solution, which was "B minus A minus 2·C.” For example, one is
given Jar A capable of holding 21 units of water, B capable of holding 127, and C capable of
holding 3. If an amount of 100 units must be measured out, the solution is to fill up Jar B and
pour out enough water to fill A once and C twice.

EXTINCTION PROBLEM
One of the critical problems was called the extinction problem. The extinction problem was
a problem that could not be solved using the previous solution B − A − 2C. In order to answer
the extinction problem correctly, one had to solve the problem directly and generate a novel
solution. An incorrect solution to the extinction problem indicated the presence of
the Einstellung effect. The problems after the extinction problem again had two possible
solutions. These post-extinction problems helped determine the recovery of the subjects from
the Einstellung effect.
The critical problems could be solved using this solution (B − A − 2C) or a shorter solution
(A − C or A + C). For example, subjects were instructed to get 18 units of water from jars
with capacities 15, 39, and 3. Despite the presence of a simpler solution (A + C), subjects in
the experimental group tended to give the lengthier solution in lieu of the shorter one. Instead
of simply filling up Jars A and C, most subjects from the experimental group preferred the
previous method of B − A − 2C, whereas virtually all of the control group used the simpler
solution. When Luchins and Luchins gave experimental group subjects the warning, "Don't
be blind," over half of them used the simplest solution to the remaining problems. Thus, this
warning helped reduce the prevalence of the Einstellung effect among the experimental
group.
The results of the water jars experiment illustrate the concept of Einstellung. The majority
of the experimental subjects adopted a mechanized state of mind and relied on mental sets
formed through previous experience. However, the experimental subjects would have been
more efficient if they had employed the direct method of solving the problem rather than
applying the same solution from previous examples.

Review of Literature-:

According to a study conducted by Murray & Bryne (2013) to study cognitive change in insight
problem solving with initial model errors and counter examples. They report the results of four
experiments that examined the cognitive changes that occur in problem solvers' mental models of
insight problems. The experiments showed that participants produced more correct solutions to
insight problems that required single steps than multiple steps. Experiment 1 showed that their
diagrams and explanations corresponded to initial model errors. Experiment 2 found more correct
solutions for problems reworded to enable the retrieval of counterexamples to common assumptions.
Experiment 3 found more correct solutions when physical props enabled the construction of a
counterexample to the initial erroneous model and also to subsequent erroneous models. Experiment 4
showed more correct solutions when physical props limited the subsequent possibilities. The
implications of the results for alternative theories of insight problem solving were discussed.

Sheridan and Reingold (2013)-studied the Mechanisms and Boundary Conditions of the Einstellung
Effect in Chess: Evidence from Eye Movements. In a wide range of problem-solving settings, the
presence of a familiar solution can block the discovery of better solutions (i.e., the Einstellung effect).
To investigate this effect, we monitored the eye movements of expert and novice chess players while
they solved chess problems that contained a familiar move (i.e., the Einstellung move), as well as an
optimal move that was located in a different region of the board. When the Einstellung move was an
advantageous (but suboptimal) move, both the expert and novice chess players who chose the
Einstellung
5 / 12
move continued to look at this move throughout the trial, whereas the subset of expert players who
chose the optimal move were able to gradually disengage their attention from the Einstellung move.
However, when the Einstellung move was a blunder, all of the experts and the majority of the novices
were able to avoid selecting the Einstellung move, and both the experts and novices gradually
disengaged their attention from the Einstellung move. These findings shed light on the boundary
conditions of the Einstellung effect, and provide convergent evidence for Bilalić, McLeod, & Gobet
(2008)’s conclusion that the Einstellung effect operates by biasing attention towards problem features
that are associated with the familiar solution rather than the optimal solution.

Lippman (2016) studied about a short report concerning the Einstellung effect. For this
participants were given a series of water jug problems, in a study designed to extend the
generality of findings concerning the persistence of a disadvantageous set (Einstellung effect)
in problem solving. In contrast to previous research, set-inducing instructions described a
general tactic, avoiding reference to specific labeled jugs. Results were inconsistent
with those of previous studies. It 6 / 13 was suggested that Einstellung effects may depend
upon consistent cues that lend themselves to a simple coding scheme.

Hypothesis 1:
The experimental group subjects will prefer lengthier solutions in lieu of the shorter one as compared
to control group subjects.

Hypothesis: 2:
Warning will reduce the prevalence of Einstellung effect in the experimental group.
 Hypothesis: 3:
The Einstellung effect will be observed even after the extinction problem (question: 9) is solved by
the participants.

Methods
Subject Preliminaries-:
Subject-1
Name – Ms. D
Education- Ba Hons English
Gender- Female
Age- 19
Subject-2
Name- Mr. A
Education- B. Com
Gender- Male
Age- 19
Subject-3
Name- Ms. A
Education- Pol. Sci hons
Gender- Female
Age- 18
Subject-4
Name- Ms. T
Education- Eco Hons
Gender- Female
Age- 19
Variables-:
Independent variable:
Practice Trial
Blinding effect

Dependent variable:
Time Taken by the subjects to solve each problem.

Response given by the subjects.

Rapport Formation:
The participant was made comfortable. An informal conversation was initiated to make them feel
relaxed. Once it was ensured that they are comfortable, the experiment was introduced. The
instructions for the experiment were given to the subject. The participant was assured that their
results would be kept confidential and not shared with anyone. If they had any query, it was
addressed and the procedure was started.
Material Required
Sets of questions
Paper
Pen
Stopwatch

Instructions
"You have 3 water jars, each with the capacity to hold, a different, a fixed amount of water, figure out
how to measure a certain amount of water using these jars".

Procedure:
The subjects were made to sit in a quiet and comfortable environment. Rapport has been established
with the subjects by convincing them that their responses will be kept confidential. Then the
instruction was given to the subjects. As such no time limit is there to solve the problems then to be
do it as quickly as possible. Then the subjects were randomly divided into two
groups i.e., experimental and control group. The experimental group was given
five practice problems, followed by six critical test problems. The control group didn’t have
the five practice problems. All the practice problems and some of the critical problems had only
one solution, which was "B-A-2c/ A-C/A+C". The experimenter gave the instruction don’t be blind to
the experimenter group only not to the control group. When the experimenter saw that the
experimenter group is using only long method for solving the problems. One by one the problems
were presented to the subjects. In both the conditions their time taken and responses were noted down
carefully. While the subjects were writing the introspective report the experimenter was writing the
observational report.

Precautions:
Before the conduction of the experiment it was ensured that the lighting facility in the lab was proper.
It was made sure that the subjects were of the same age group and they were randomly assigned
divided into two groups i.e., experimental and control group.

Introspective Report:
Subject-1:
It was a really good experiment, I enjoyed doing this experiment.
Subject-2:
I was a little nervous doing this experiment, but after the first trial it seemed easy and I liked doing it.
Subject-3:
Enjoyed being a part of this experiment, was little anxious earlier but the experiment went great.
Subject3:
Had fun while doing this experiment.

Observational Report:
Subject1:
The subject was calm during the experiment; it was observed that the subject was easily able to solve the
questions.
Subject2:
The subject seemed little nervous while doing the experiment, and was agitated at the 9 th question, overall was
relaxed once the experiment was over.
Subject3:
The subject was very focused while performing this experiment and calm throughout.
Subject4:
The subject was very careful while performing the experiment.

Result Table-:

Table Number 1 Experimental Group

Question No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Subject Time 49 11 11 11 15 28 25 9 27 10 4
1 Taken Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs
Response           
Formula B-A- B-A- B-A-2C B-A-2C B-A-2C B-A-2C B-A-2C A+C B-A- A-C A-C
2C 2C 2C
Subject Time 1 Sec 51 40 20 21 36 20 10 2 10 7 Secs
2 Taken Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Secs Mins Secs
Response         ×  
Formula B-A- B-A- B-A-2C B-A-2C B-A-2C B-A-2C B-A-2C B-A-2C B-A- B-A-2C B-A-2C
2C 2C 2C

Table Number 1 Control Group

Question No. 6 7 8 9 10 11
Subject Time 15 49 33 11 17 9 secs
1 Taken secs secs secs secs secs
Response      

Formula B-A- B-A- B-A- A+C B-A- A-C

2C 2C 2C 2C
Subject Time 12 15 32 12 20 22
2 Taken secs secs secs secs secs secs
Response      

Formula B-A- B-A-2C B-A- A+C A-C A-C

2C 2C
Discussion and Conclusion-:
The aim of this experiment was to investigate Einstellung effect on the problem solving ability of the
participants. Hypothesis of the experiment of the experiment were: the experiment group subject will prefer
lengthier solution in lieu of the shorter one as compared to control group subject, warming will reduce
the prevalence of Einstellung effect in the experimental group and the Einstellung effects will be observed
even after the extinction problem(question9) is solved by the participant.
Einstellung states that a person's predisposition to solve a given problem in a specific manner even though
better or more appropriate methods of solving the problem exist. The Einstellung effect is the negative effect
of previous experience when solving new problems.
After the conduction, the result of the experiment shows that experiment group after practice trails
used the lengthier formula 10 times, while the control group used it only 7 times. This convey that
the practice trials created mental sets which made the subject of experiment group more inclined
towards using the lengthier formula. This proves our 1st hypothesis. In the experiment group, after
receiving a warming the Einstellung effect reduced for subject 1 but not for 2. This makes us
uncertain about the 2nd hypothesis. Also, it was observed that 3 out of 4 participants used
the lengthier formula even after the extinction problem i.e., the 9th question, proving the 3rd
hypothesis true.
Conclusion:
Hence, we conclude that Einstellung effect has a negative impact on the new problem-solving ability
of the subject.

References-:

 Murray, M. A., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2013). Cognitive change in insight problem

solving: Initial model errors and counterexamples. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,

25(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.743986

 Sheridan, H., & Reingold, E. M. (2013). The Mechanisms and Boundary Conditions

of the Einstellung Effect in Chess: Evidence from Eye Movements. PLoS ONE, 8(10),

e75796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075796

 Lippman, L. G. (1996). A Short Report concerning the Einstellung Effect. The

Journal of General Psychology, 123(3), 233–235.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1996.9921275