SUBMITTED BY:

Name- JAHNVI KUMAR

ENROLMENT NO.-
A015116719077
PROGRAMME- IMA-3
S. NO. NAME OF THE EXPERIMENT DATE
1. The Zeigarnik Effect 29.07.20
2. The Stroop Effect 19.08.20
3. Sociometry 09.09.20
4. Functional Fixedness 23.09.20
5. The Einstellung Effect 12.10.20
 Experiment 1: The Zeigarnik Effect
• AIM- To assess the influence of Zeigarnik effect on recall of tasks

Introduction: The Zeigarnik Effect: Learning, Completion, Motivation and Memory.

The ability to remember is an evolutionary adaptation, whereby, human beings are
able to enhance their chances of survival and overall flourishing. Specifically,
memory retention has been demonstrated to be inseparably tied one’s motivational
fortitude, completion of tasks, and ability to learn. Relatedly, the findings discovered
through the “Zeigarnik effect,” inferentially and explicitly, correspond to these facts.
In essence, the “Zeigarnik Effect” proposes that, there is a greater likelihood for
individuals to remember tasks they have yet to finish rather than those they have
successfully completed. Furthermore, while involving tests, the theory presumes that
subjects will devote significantly more attention to the answers they get incorrect.
Prior to addressing the present study, it is necessary to briefly outline previous
research that is germane to the topic at hand.
• Hypothesis: Respondents will remember incomplete/interrupted tasks more as
compared to complete tasks.
• Method:
• Subject Preliminaries:
• Name: XYZ
• Age: 20
• Gender: Female
• Education: Undergraduate
• Material Required:
• One set of different tasks, pen, pencil, stopwatch and a plain sheet.

• Variables:
• Independent Variable: Nature of the Tasks (completed or interrupted)
• Dependent Variable: Recall of the tasks.
• Instructions:
“I will give you one set which consists of 10 different tasks. When I say start, you have to
start and when I say stop, you have to stop. We will keep moving to the next task till we
complete the ten. The tasks are time bound so, complete as fast as you can.”
• Precautions:
Before the conduction of the experiment, it was ensured that the lighting facility in the lab
was proper. Tasks were presented in a proper manner to avoid the chance of the participant
being fatigued and to avoid repetitiveness. It was made sure that there was no background
noise to avoid unwanted distractions.
• Procedure:
The subject was made to sit in a quiet and comfortable lab. Rapport has been established with
the subject by convincing them that their responses will be kept confidential. Then, the
instructions were given to the subject. One by one, each task has been attempted by the
subject, keeping in mind tasks are time bound. Time taken and the responses of the subject
were noted down very carefully. Next day, the recall was taken by asking the subjects to recall
the name of the tasks he/she had attempted the previous day. Then, the responses were noted
down. While the subject is writing the introspective report of his experience, the experimenter
is writing the observational report.
• Scoring:

 
• Introspective Report: Some tasks were difficult to perform but, overall, I enjoyed
doing the tasks. I was a little nervous at first but my partner made sure that I was
comfortable and all my questions were resolved clearly.
• Observational Report: The subject seemed to be nervous at first but, later on after
performing some tasks was patient. She carefully performed all of them with her
utmost attention.
• Results:
• Result & Discussion
The purpose of this experiment is to assess the influence of Zeigarnik effect on recall of tasks. In
the given experiment, the hypothesis was that the respondents will remember incomplete/
interrupted tasks more as compared to complete tasks. The result of this experiment as shown in
result table no. 1 is that the no. of complete recalled tasks is 3 and that of incomplete tasks is 5.
Also, the percentage remembrance of incomplete tasks is 50% and that of complete task is 20%. In
other words, the subject recalled incomplete tasks more than complete task. The reason for this
being that the desire to complete a task can cause it to be retained in a person’s memory until it has
been completed and that the finality of its completion enables the process of forgetting to take
place. So, as the subject remembered incomplete tasks more than complete tasks, the hypothesis is
proved. Denmark (2010) conducted an experiment on the fact that subjects ranging widely in age
tended to remember interrupted tasks better (and with greater frequency) than they remembered
tasks they had completed. First noticed that waiters seemed to remember orders only so long as the
order was in the process of being served, not once it was finished and therefore a complete task.
What amounted to common sense observations became the impetus for a series of germinal
experiments by Zeigarnik. 
• Conclusion
The subject remembered incomplete/ interrupted tasks more as compared to complete tasks.
 EXPERIMENT-2 THE STROOP EFFECT
• AIM- To investigate the Stroop Effect and to investigate how interference affects an individual’s ability
in both conditions.
• INTRODUCTION- To see and interact with the world, we first need to understand it. Visual
processing is one way we do this, and is composed of many parts, we don’t just see its physical
attributes, we also comprehend the meaning behind them. There is information that we process about
the things we see without even being aware of that processing. John Ridley Stroop asked people to read
words on a sheet of paper in 1929, he knew that their automatic processing would come into play, and
could offer a breakthrough insight into brain function. Stroop’s innovation was to show, clearly and
definitively, that our embedded knowledge about our environment impacts how we interact with it.
Following are few theories that may explain the Stroop effect:
Speed of Processing Theory: This theory states that people can read words much faster than they can
name colours. The speed at which we read makes it much more difficult to name the colour of the word
after we've read the word.
Selective Attention Theory: According to this theory, naming the actual colour of the words requires
much more attention than simply reading the text.
Automaticity: This theory proposes that automatic reading doesn't require focused attention. Instead, the
brain simply engages in it automatically. Recognising colours, on the other hand, may be less of an
automated process. While the brain registers written meaning automatically, it does require a certain
amount of attentional resources to process colour, making it more difficult to process colour information
and therefore slowing down reaction times.
• HYPOTHESIS:
The reaction time for the congruent condition will be significantly faster than that of the incongruent
condition.
Fewer mistakes will be made within the congruent condition in comparison to the incongruent
condition.
• METHOD
• ADMINISTRATION:
A repeated measures design was used for this experiment. This required using the same participants for
each condition – congruent and incongruent. This allowed the responses from an individual for the
congruent condition to be directly compared to their response for the incongruent condition. There were
two conditions being compared. The congruent condition consisted of words written in the same
color ink e.g. the word ‘red’ was written in red ink. The second condition was incongruent e.g. ‘red’
written in blue ink.
 
• SUBJECT PRELIMINARIES:
Name: ​ABC
Age: ​24
Gender: ​F
• MATERIALS REQUIRED:
• Two sets of cards, one in which the words are written in the same ink colour as the names of the
colours and the other in which the ink of the colours is different from the names of the colours, pen,
pencil, stopwatch, and a plain sheet.
•  VARIABLES:
Independent Variable: List of color words (congruent and incongruent.)
Dependent Variable: 1. Average time taken by the subject to name the colour of ink 2. Errors committed
for each condition​.
 
• PRECAUTIONS:
Before the conduction of the experiment, it was ensured that the lighting facility in the lab was proper.
Tasks were presented in a proper manner to avoid the chance of being fatigued and repetitiveness. It was
made sure that there was no background noise to avoid unwanted distractions.
 
• INSTRUCTIONS:
• “I will show you the card and you have to name the color of the ink in which words are written.
Whatever response comes first in your mind you have to mention that response in an audible voice. If
you have any query regarding the experiment you can ask me without any hesitation.”
• PROCEDURE:
The subject was made to sit in a quiet and comfortable room. Rapport has
been established with the subject by convincing them that their responses will be
kept confidential. Then, the instructions were given to the subject. As such there is no
time limit to complete the experiment but you have to mention whatever response
comes to your mind. One by one, the cards were shown to the subjects and their
responses and time taken were noted down.
 
• INTROSPECTIVE REPORT- “The activity was fun and my partner made sure to
resolve all the doubts that I had.”
 
• OBSERVATION REPORT- The participant was cooperative and picked things up
quickly. It seemed like she was enjoying the activity.
• Results:
• DISCUSSION:
The aim of the experiment was to investigate the stroop effect and to determine how
congruence and incongruence of the stimuli affects an individual’s performance on this test. As
can be seen in the results table, the total time taken for the participant to complete reciting the
congruent list was about 25 seconds, the average was 1.25 seconds and no errors were
committed. This was because the words presented and the names of the colours were the same,
there was no difficulty in focusing on the colour as the stimuli was congruent and easier to
perceive.
On the other hand, for the incongruent stimuli, the participant took around 32 seconds to
complete the task, the average time taken was 1.56 seconds and 2 errors were committed. This
happened because the stimuli was incongruent, which means that the names of the colours did
not match the ink they were written in. This distracted the participant and made her perceive
the stimuli differently. This happens because our brain is wired to read. We come across and
process words so frequently that the reading occurs almost effortlessly, whereas recitation of a
color requires more cognitive effort. When there is a conflict between these two sources of
information, our cognitive load is increased, and our brain has to work harder to resolve the
required difference. Performing these tasks (preventing reading, processing word color, and
resolving information conflict) ultimately slows down our responses, increasing the
completion time of the task.
• CONCLUSION:
Our two hypothesis- “The reaction time for the congruent condition will be
significantly faster than that of the incongruent condition” and “Fewer
mistakes will be made within the congruent condition in comparison to the
incongruent condition” have been accepted.
 EXPERIMENT-3 SOCIOMETRY
• AIM- to assess the interpersonal attraction among students with the help of Sociometry developed by Dr. Bina
Srivastava which is an adaptation of Moreno Sociometry Test.
 INTRODUCTION:
• J.L. Moreno is credited with the development of sociometry. Sociometry is the measurement of social choice,
meaning the decisions, both conscious and unconscious, that are made regarding inter-personal affiliation.
These measurement tools can be used to facilitate change. “Sociometry is useful when looking at and
measuring the choices made by the group as well as by the individual.” Individuals who are highly selected,
that is, who receive the most choices, are called “sociometric stars.” Because choices can be either positive or
negative so can the sociometric title, a positive sociometric star logically receives the most positive choices,
while the sociometric rejection star is the individual receiving the greatest number of negative choices. The
opposite is true of being the rejection star.
• Social Exchange Theory of Interpersonal Attraction The theory proposes that during interpersonal
interactions, a system of costs and benefits is in operation. Benefits may be intrinsically rewarding such as love
or social approval, or they may be extrinsic. These benefits operate to encourage individuals to continue to
supply benefits and thus perpetuate the relationship. Individuals become more integrated through this process,
and the social relationship becomes stronger. Homans theorises that individuals expect the benefits of a
relationship to be proportional to their costs and that the more the individual invests in a relationship, the
greater his/her profits will be. Valued individuals have many benefits associated with them and thus become
desirable associates.
• INSTRUCTIONS:
“You will be given an A4 size sheet in which you will be supposed to write down the names
of three students whom you would like to participate with in this activity. You will have to
write down the names of the students in order of preference. This means, first you will write
the name of the person you like the most, second who you like a little less than the first one,
and the third name of the person you’d prefer the least out of the group. You can choose to
completely refuse to rate a member from this group. Remember, you cannot give the same
rating to two people from the group. Write down the names of people from this group only.
Your response will be kept confidential.”
 
• PROCEDURE:
• Each group consisted of 10 members, all of whom were assigned a letter between A to J.
This process was carried out confidentially.
• Students were asked if the instructions were clear to them. Following this, the students
were given a piece of paper to write down their responses. Once they had written their
responses, the paper was taken back from them and they were thanked for their
cooperation.
MATERIAL REQUIRED:
Different coloured pens, A4 sheet, other required stationery.
 
PRECAUTIONS:
• Make sure the participant does not give the same ranks to two different members of
the group.
• The participant should be made comfortable and all the material should be readied
beforehand.
• The participant should not be told the aim of the study to avoid discrepancies in the
results.
 
PRELIMINARIES:
• 10 subjects were chosen from BA psychology batch, their age ranging from 18 to 21
years.
INTROSPECTIVE REPORT:
A. “The experiment was really interesting and I got something new to learn from it.”
B. “I enjoyed participating in the experiment. It was very interesting and all my doubts were clarified by the
experimenter.”
C. “The experiment was interesting and i explored new things and my partner very well cooperated with me. It was
a fun experiment.”
D. “It was a fun activity.”
E. “The experiment was interesting and new to me and my partner made sure to resolve all my doubts.”
F. “The activity was very interesting and my partner was kind enough to clear all my doubts.”
G. “I loved the experiment and I was really curious about the experiment. It was very interesting and got something
new to learn!”
H. “I thoroughly enjoyed participating in the experiment. It was interesting to be a part of and I got to learn more
about the topic.”
I. “i found the experiment very interesting and informative. I was very curious to perform and enjoyed while
performing it.”
J. “It was a fun experiment and the experimenter cleared all my doubts. I enjoyed participating in it.”
 OBSERVATION REPORT:
• All the participants were cooperative and picked up on the instructions quickly. They seemed to have enjoyed the
activity.
• RESULTS
• DISCUSSIONS:
The aim of the experiment was to find out the interpersonal attraction among students using the sociometry
test. As can be seen in the result table, the participants were assigned a letter from the English alphabet
between A-J. After noting down each participant’s response, their preferences were given a corresponding
score, rank 1 was given a score of 3, rank 2 was given a score of 2 and rank 3 was given the lowest score of
1. These scores were then added to get the final score for each letter. From the table, we comprehend that
letter A and letter I have the highest scores out of all the ten participants. In the beginning of the experiment,
the participants were asked to rank in order of preference from the group, people they would like to work
with. Hence, letter A and letter I were the most popular and liked among the group. This indicates that they
were chosen the most number of times and are the ‘stars’ of the group. Letter F got the second highest
number of votes followed by letter D and E. As suggested in the Social Exchange Theory of Interpersonal
Attraction, people are desired for their values and the costs and benefits that they offer. The more the benefits
an individual offers, the more they are valued and desired. We can maintain that the participants in this
experiment must have kept in mind certain past experiences, the values they associate with each member of
the group and the benefits they have to offer, while writing down and ranking their preferences. The result
table is followed by a Sociogram that represents the choices of each participant through arrows and different
inks. Pink arrows denote the first rank given by one member of the group to another, blue arrows denote the
second rank and green inked arrows denote the third rank.
• CONCLUSION:
• The test measures the interpersonal attraction among students. Different factors affect the preferences of
each student.
 EXPERIMENT-4 FUNCTIONAL
FIXEDNESS
• AIM- To measure the influence of functional fixedness on a participant’s problem solving abilities.
•  INTRODUCTION- The test was created by Gestalt psychologist Karl Duncker in 1945. Duncker
defined functional fixedness as being a "mental block against using an object in a new way that is
required to solve a problem." This "block" then limits that ability of an individual to use the
components given to them to make a specific item, as they cannot move past the original intention of
the object. Experimental paradigms typically involve solving problems in novel situations in which
the subject has to make use of a familiar object in an unfamiliar context. The object may be familiar
from the subject’s past experience or from previous tasks within an experiment. The end result is
that the subject typically becomes unable to overcome the bias which hinders or completely prevents
the subject from completing the task rather than making use of the available objects in a novel but
more efficacious manner. For example, if someone needs a paperweight, but they only have a
hammer, they may not see how the hammer can be used as a paperweight. This inability to see a
hammer's use as anything other than pounding nails, is functional fixedness. The person couldn't
think of how to use the hammer in a way other than its traditional function.
HYPOTHESIS:
• The adults and older children (9 and 11 year old) will be significantly slower to use
tack box as a shelf as compared to the 5 year old.
• The time to reach the solution will be decreased for older children in the second
condition of the experiment as compared to the first condition of the experiment.
METHOD 
ADMINISTRATION:
• A repeated measures design was used for this experiment. This requires using the
same participants for each condition (condition 1 and 2). This allows the responses
from an individual for the condition one to be directly compared to their response
for second condition. There were two conditions being compared in this
experiment. In the first condition, subject was given matchsticks, tack pins in the
box, candle and board. In the second condition the tack box was given separately
from the pins and rest material was same as condition one. The age group of the
subjects was 5, 9 and 11.
PRELIMINARIES:
• Subject 1- 5 years old, Female.
• Subject 2- 9 years old, Male.
• Subject 3- 11 years old, Male.​
 
MATERIAL REQUIRED:
• A candle, a matchbox, thumbtacks, timer, pen and paper.

INSTRUCTIONS:
• “You will be doing an interesting activity. You will be given a candle, matchsticks
and thumbtacks. You have to put the candle on the wall in such a way that the wax
does not drip on the table. You can ask your questions before we start the activity
and the administrator would be happy to resolve them. Remember that you can
only use the materials provided.”
PRECAUTIONS:
• The instructions should be clear.
• Safety should be ensured.
• There should not be any external influence or distractions or disturbances.
• The thumbtacks should be inside the box in the first condition and outside the
box in second condition.

PROCEDURE:
• The subjects were given the candle, matchbox and thumbtacks and were asked
to attach the candle to the wall so that it did not drip onto the table below.
There were two different conditions but the subject wasn’t aware of that. In the
first condition, subject was given matchsticks, tack pins in the box, candle and
board. In the second condition the tack box was given separately from the pins
and the rest of the material was the same as in condition one.
INTROSPECTIVE REPORT:
• This was so fun to do. I initially got tired but then once I understood, I laughed a lot. It was difficult
for me to put it but mom helped me out and I did it”
• “I was very excited because I was doing something new. Once I figured how to do it, I was very
happy”
• “I was very curious in the beginning. I took a lot of time to figure out the solution but I was able to
perform the task”
 
OBSERVATIONAL REPORT:
1. The subject was very happy when she started the experiment. She got irritated when she wasn’t
able to figure out the correct solution but once she did, she was excited and jumped with joy.
2. The subject was very excited in the beginning. He was trying very hard to stick the candle to the
wall with the help of the pin. He never gave up and kept trying again and again. Once he was able to
do it, he was very happy. In the second condition, he figured out how to do it with the help of the box
very quickly.
3. Initially the subject tried to pin the candle but due to the alignment of the wall, it wasn’t possible.
Then, he applied wax to the bottom of the candle and placed it on the wall. In the second condition, he
took a minute to figure out but then he was able to do it in the expected manner.
• Results
• DISCUSSION: The concept of Functional Fixedness developed during the period of Gestalt psychology.
Functional fixedness is a cognitive bias that limits a person to use an object only in the way it is
traditionally used. The aim of this experiment was to test the influence of functional fixedness on a
participant’s problem solving abilities. As can be seen in the table, the first subject (5 years old) took 100
seconds to use the box as a shelf in the first condition and 20 seconds in the second condition. This
implies that the participant was quite quick in coming up with a way to use the box differently against the
object’s traditional use. The second subject (9 years old) took 120 seconds in the first condition and tried
pinning the candle to the wall using thumbtacks. In the second condition they took 80 seconds to use the
box as the shelf. This is indicative of the fact that the 9 year old participant took comparatively more time
to come up with a solution to the presented problem. The functional fixedness in this case was higher as
the age of this participant is older than the previous participant. The third subject (11 years old) took 120
seconds in the first condition and used wax to stick candle on the wall. In the second condition, they took
150 seconds to use the box as a shelf. This situations evidently shows us how the oldest participant used
the maximum time to come up with a solution to keep the candle wax from dripping. Age is indicative of
functional fixedness in the manner that greater the age, the more a person becomes biased towards using
an object only in its traditional form. The creativity, curiosity and novelty lessen as a person ages. Hence,
age is directly related to the functional fixedness of a person. This may stand false in a few exceptional
cases but is true for most individuals.
• CONCLUSION:
The results show us that our hypothesis is accepted as as the age of the participants increased, their
functional fixedness also solidified.
 EXPERIMENT-5 THE EINSTELLUNG
EFFECT
• Aim
To investigate the Einstellung Effect on the problem-solving ability of the
participants.
• Introduction:
• Problem Solving – Problem solving consists of using generic or ad hoc methods in an
orderly manner to find solutions to problems. The Einstellung Effect occurs where
pre-existing knowledge impedes one’s ability to reach an optimal solution. We
become unable to consider other solutions when we think we already have a one,
even though it may not be accurate or optimal. It leaves us cognitively incapable of
differentiating previous experience with the current problem. So we may solve a
problem but we don’t actually innovate.
Method
Hypothesis
• The experimental group subjects will prefer lengthier solutions in lieu of the shorter ones as compare to
the control group subjects.
• The Einstellung effect will be observed even after extinction problem is solved by participants
 Materials Required
• Pen, Paper, Timer
 Demographic Details of Participants
Experimental Group
• X, Female, 19 years old
• Y, Female, 20 years old
• Z, Male, 19 years old
Control Group
• A, Female, 20 years old
• B, Male, 19 Years old
• C, Female, 19 years old
• Instructions
There are three jars with different capacities. You will have to measure out the exact quantity that
needs to be derived according to the questions given to you. You only have these three jars to
measure the answers to the questions. There is no time limit but try to do it as fast as you can.
 
• 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 instructions were given to the subjects. As such there is no time limit to solve the
problems than to 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 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-A-2C / A-C / A+C”. The experimenter gave the instructions don’t be blind boutique
experimental group only, not to the control group when the experimenter saw that experimental
group participants were only using the long method for solving the problems. One by one the
problems were presented to the subjects. In both the conditions, the time taken and responses were
noted down carefully. When the subject for writing the introspective report, experimental was
writing the observation report.
OBSERVATION REPORT:
• The participants were excited about the experiment. One of them seemed a little
nervous when she was told the activity would involve her solving a few mathematical
problems. All the participants were a little confused initially but when they figured
out the solution, they seemed motivated and happy.
 
INTROSPECTIVE REPORT:
• “The activity was fun, I really enjoyed solving the problems.”
• “I had a few doubts but my administrator made sure to clear them, I had fun.”
• “ I was worried about not being able to solve the problems when I was told that the
activity would be something about numbers but then I got the hang of it and it seemed
easy.”
• “The activity was amazing, I hope I got all the answers right!”
• “I really enjoyed doing some math after a long time.”
• “I was a little scared in the beginning but the administrator made sure I was
comfortable and cleared all my doubts.”
• Results table-1 Experimental Group
• Results table-2 Control Group
• DISCUSSION:
The aim of the experiment was to investigate the einstellung effect on the participants. As can be seen from
result table number 1, the participants in the experimental group were given 11 questions to solve. The first
subject (x) took around 8 seconds to respond. She was a little confused for a fraction of second but quickly
figured out the solution when the formula to be used struck her. For the next question, it was easy for her to
figure out the solution as she anticipated the same formula. The einstellung effect kicked in and she
automatically used the same formula to solve the next few problems and correctly so. When she reached the
seventh question, she thought for a little longer than she did on the other questions and tried to figure out
the formula to be used. She took 9 seconds to respond. Despite taking more time, she ended up using the
same formula for this question as she did for the precious questions. She could have solved this question
using a different, much easier formula. A similar incident followed for the ninth question, the participant X
ended up using the same formula one more time. The second participant (Y), took seven seconds to respond
and come up with the solution for the first problem. Taking 6 and 4 seconds respectively to solve the next
two questions, she got the hang of the activity and continued solving the problems with the same formula
even for the next four questions. When she reached the seventh question, she tried applying the same
formula again but it was an unsuccessful attempt. She took ten seconds of her time thinking of a solution.
Again, when she reached the ninth question, the participant used the same formula that she had been using
to solve the previous questions. The third participant (Z) took around 12 seconds to solve the first question.
This was comparatively more time taken than other participants discussed so far. Even though this
participant answered all the question correctly, there was no significant difference noted upon them
reaching the seventh and ninth questions which were to be solved differently.
• For table number 2, control group:
The first participant (A) took between 8-10 seconds to solve all the questions. Taking
comparatively more time to solve the last two questions. They seemed to be stuck specially on the
last question. The second participant (B) took 10 seconds to solve the first question, and got
comfortable after this, making it easier for them to solve the next few questions. They took more or
less the same time to solve the rest of the questions (around 9 seconds). The third participant (C)
took the least amount of time out of all the other participants, making them the fastest out of the lot.
There is no specific reason that can be thought of for this speed but just the appreciative skill of the
individual. These results can be best explained by the Einstellung Effect which states that pre-
existing knowledge impedes one’s ability to think differently. We become unable to consider other
solutions when we think we already have one, even though it may not be accurate or optimal. It
leaves us cognitively incapable of differentiating previous experience with the current problem. So
we may solve a problem but we don’t actually innovate. These results can further be backed by the
study conducted by Bilalić and his colleagues in 2008 on various chess players. They also stated
that “the more familiar solution induced the Einstellung effect even in experts, preventing them
from finding the optimal solution. The presence of the non-optimal solution reduced experts’
problem solving ability was reduced to about that of players three standard deviations lower in skill
level by the presence of the non-optimal solution. Inflexibility of thought induced by prior
knowledge (i.e., the blocking effect of the familiar solution) was shown by experts but the more
expert they were, the less prone they were to the effect. Inflexibility of experts is both reality and
myth. But the greater the level of expertise, the more of a myth it becomes”.
• Conclusion Our hypothesis, “The experimental group subjects will prefer
lengthier solutions in lieu of the shorter ones as compare to the control
group subjects, and The Einstellung effect will be observed even after
extinction problem is solved by participants” is accepted.