The Einstellung Effect Introduction: Problem solving is the act of defining a problem, determining the cause of the problem, identifying, prioritizing, and selecting alternatives for a solution; and implementing a solution. Define the problem: diagnose the situation so that our focus is on the problem. To state the problem specifically, we should differentiate fact from opinion and to be able to explain underlying causes. Try to determine at which stage problem is lies. Generate new ideas: Before evaluating our alternatives, include all individual aspects in process. Specify short and long term alternatives. Take into consideration others’ ideas and then seek to those alternatives that solves the problem. Evaluate and select solution: Evaluate all related alternatives without bias. Evaluate both proven and possible outcomes. State the selected alternative explicitly. Implement and evaluate: It is better to plan and implement a trial test of chosen alternative, gather feedback , seek acceptance or consensus, and then evaluate long term results based on final solution. Herbert Simon and Allen Newell (1971) made important contributions to the study of ‘human problem solving’ within an information processing system (IPS) framework. Their information-processing theory of problem solving suggests that when people move from an initial problem state towards a solution state; they form a mental representation of the problem, which in this thesis is called a problem map. Their findings suggested that the structure of a problem could be characterized by a set of states, beginning with an initial problem state, involving many intermediate states, and ending with a goal state. In order for people to solve the problems they have to employ a range of cognitive strategies to reduce the number of states which they have to pass through to reach the goal state. Newell and Simon describe such strategies as heuristics; such as mean-end analysis. This theory identifies the various hypothetical states, processes and strategies that people may use to go about solving problems. Another research on problem solving was done by Robert Weisberg and Joseph Alba (1981). It has been commonly accepted in psychology that such problems are difficult because people are fixated on unwarranted assumptions concerning how problems are to be solved. When Weisberg and Alba told participants how to solve the problems out of the usual boundaries such as they told participants that 9 dot problem could be only solved by extending their solution lines out of the square created by dots. They found that removing traditional fixedness does not actually have a very important effect in problem solving process and the solutions were only facilitated if relatively detailed information is given. So, problem -specific knowledge is required to solve insight problems. But this finding was contradicted by the research of Lung & Domniowski (1985) saying that instructions and practice facilitates performance on 9 dot problem. Further analyses indicated that both the square shape of the dot pattern and the presence of a center dot contributed to difficulty, extending lines is important for solving the problem. Ohlsson proposes a theory to expand the theory of heuristic search into a more complete theory of human problem solving by breaking down problem solving into the cognitive domains of perception, memory, intentionality, decision making, and judgement. He says, “To engage in heuristic search, people have to perceive the problem situation, retrieve relevant actions, conceptualize the top goal, activate and apply action selection preferences, and assemble a way to evaluate problem states.” Dörner and Funke (2017) urge the field to move away from simple ‘toy’ problems (such as the nine-dot problem or the six matchsticks problem) and move onto research on how humans solve complex such as political crises. They felt that during this time period initial emphasis on analyzing how humans deals with complex, dynamic, and uncertain situation is lost. So, in today’s world require a return to origin of research tradition. WHAT IS EINSTELLUNG EFFECT? Einstellung Effect refers to a person’s tendency to solve a given problem in a specific manner even though better or more appropriate methods of solving the problem exist. The Einstellung effect can be described as “having the same attitude or applying the same knowledge to novel situations even though there are better alternatives”. E.g. we may think that we are doing our best but nothing has changed, or we are having the same conversations over and over again with different people. It occurs where pre-existing knowledge impedes our ability to reach a better solution. 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 from the current problem. We do solve the problem but we don’t innovate. During creative problem-solving, prior knowledge and experience can enhance performance by efficiently guiding us towards solutions that worked in the past. However, prior knowledge can also harm performance if the problem requires a novel solution. The Einstellung Effect is the brain’s way of finding an appropriate solution as efficiently as possible. Even though the process of finding the solution is efficient, the solution found might not necessarily be the most efficient. 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 problem of having 3 water jars, each with the capacity to hold a different, fixed amount of water; and need to 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. 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. Luchins had explained that the concept of Einstellung is related in the literature to such concepts as set and transfer, perseveration, rigidity, and mindlessness. Different views are expressed on the relationship of Einstellung to functional fixedness, insight, and creativity in problem solving. Bilalic and McLeod proposed that the Einstellung effect is by no means limited to control experiments in lab or even to mentally challenging games like chess, rather it is a basis for many cognitive biases; such as, confirmation bias. The real danger of Einstellung Effect is we may believe that we are thinking in an open-minded way, completely unaware that our brain is selectively directing attention away from our aspects of environment that could inspire new thoughts. They said that generally we get fixate on the first solution and fail to notice further alternatives. If those alternatives are present alone, however, we can see them right away. Again Wiley (1998) found that there is difference in development of Einstellung effect between Expertise and Novice. He found that experts tend to consider less information than do novices in their problem solving which might due to their previous knowledge. But still extensive domain knowledge may benefit problem solving in most domain-related circumstances. But wiley study presented that expertise can indeed instill a mental set and promote fixation. He found greater misleading effects for high-knowledge subjects than for low knowledge. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SIDE OF EINSTELLUNG EFFECT: The Einstellung Effect helps to explain why it is so hard for experienced people to change the way they think, or see new possibilities. i. Mental set prevents a person from being able to solve a problem due to using previously known strategies and procedures. ii. When a person is presented with a problem they may focus primarily on a specific portion of the problem which unable to arrive at a solution. iii. It hinders person’s creativity and out of the box thinking, leading to rigid thinking. iv. It can be very useful too because it allows us to come up with quickly solutions. v. To find familiar solution once involves activity of mind. vi. Using mental set or any heuristics reduces cognitive load, it narrows the problem space. REASONS BEHIND EINSTELLUNG EFFECT: As noted earlier, Einstellung effect is a reflection of mental set and functional fixedness. Once the brain has found systems and patterns which work repeatedly, it will strengthen these networks to make them consume even less energy in the future. Each time a group of neurons fires together and make a pattern, those neurons tend to fire in the same pattern again. This pattern becomes a physiological one. These repetitions in fact create a familiarity over a one particular thing and stop us from new or let’s say other ideas besides it. In the Einstellung effect, recency effect is also one of the reasons. Participants got acquainted with earlier trials that they just solved or come across. Hence they use those solutions each time for any problem further. Again it’s a human tendency to gain a success whenever they are confronted with problems; in that case each individual tries to apply his/her prior knowledge first that might prove appropriate somewhere in life, before inventing a new one if needed. EXPERIMENTS BASED ON EINSTELLUNG EFFECT: Bilalic et al. Vallee Tourangeau, mcleod and Gobet, Chen and Mo: Vallee-Tourangeau, F., Euden, G., & Hearn, V. (2011) proposed that presenting the water jar problem in a physical environment configures an extended cognitive system in which an agent engages with external resources to solve a problem. The manipulation and coordination of physical artefacts augment the range of processes implicated in the problem-solving activity, adding action and vision to imagery and projection. A richer and dynamic environment provides a shifting array of perceptual cues which in turn guides and constrains action. So, one group of P’s completed the water-jar problem under usual paper-pencil condition (non-Interactive group), the other group solved it by actual physical interactions of the jar at the sink. Significantly more Ps in the interactive group solved the extinction problem than in the noninteractive group. Interactive participants also learned to use the B – A – 2C rule for the Einstellung problems. However, they were significantly less likely to employ the rule for the critical problems and could more easily employ a simpler rule for these and the extinction problem. The rich and dynamic nature of the perceptual input in the interactive conditions overwrote the schema acquired with the set problems. Higher scores on test of visuospatial skills predicted less perseverance and faster solution time with the jars, especially in the Interactive group. Chen and Mo (2004) trained Ps in various source/initial problems. Either Ps were trained in source problems that required same formula, or in source problems that required different formula. Then, they presented Ps with target problems. Performance was facilitated for group on the target problem who were trained in diverse formulas than those who were trained in same formula. During the source problem-solving phase, participants in the variable formula condition derived a general strategy (addition and/or subtraction) that aided them in obtaining the target quantities. For the Ps in the constant condition, the problem solutions tended to be tied to a specific formula and, thus, once they encountered a problem requiring a different formula, they experienced an obstacle in using the learned solutions. Improvement in source problem-solving performance was slower when source problems had different procedural features in the variable conditions than when they shared similar features in the constant conditions, but Variability in source solution procedures fostered schema induction, which in turn, facilitated transfer. Elaborate on reasons for Einstellung effect – (familiarity, repetition, recency, success) To design an Einstellung experiment, it is necessary to understand the exact causes of what makes the effect appear. Previous sections already mentioned some factors superficially, but this section will go into more detail. There seem to be four attributes that play a role: • Familiarity • Repetition • Recency • Success All of these come together and create the basis for Einstellung to occur. Familiarity is probably the single most important attribute in this list. As mentioned in the introduction, familiarity is necessary for all learning transfers to occur. Without our ability to identify current problems as being similar to ones we have encountered before; we would create cognitive strain every time we do something. With familiarity, we can recycle strategies from old problems and use them for new ones. Similarity, hereby, describes the relationship between problems, whereby familiarity describes the ability of a person to detect this relationship – possibly incorrectly. This incorrect identification, created by a sense of familiarity, is then one of the four attributes that facilitates the occurrence of Einstellung (Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Bilalić et al., 2008b, 2010). Repetition or frequency describes the number of times a participant is confronted with a certain problem. As previously mentioned in section 3.3, there has not been a lot of research concerning this point. However, we can assume that an Einstellung Effect can already occur after a single previously encountered problem (Luchins, 1942). With each additional problem, the effect will get stronger; thus, it becomes harder to recover from it (Sweller et al., 1983). The repetitive use of a single solution strategy is an indicator that the participant did indeed recognize a link between the current problem and previous problems of the same kind. Recency is probably the least strong attribute required to cause Einstellung, as the effect has been shown with participants that had no immediate training, but long-term experiences and knowledge (Bilalić et al., 2008a). However, when one is interested in the performance of novices, the impact of recency can be significant (Luchins, 1942). Wiley (1998) argues that novices can probably recover from the Einstellung Effect by simply waiting, which may be due to the fact that this knowledge is not as strongly encoded in their memory as it is with expert participants. Success, or otherwise described as the history of success is another key component to the Einstellung Effect and learning transfer in general. Solving an encountered problem successfully will fix it more firmly in one’s mind and makes it, thereby, easier retrievable for future applications. This is of course connected to repetition, by making it more likely that a strategy will be recalled, the more often it has been successfully used in the past (Lovett & Anderson, 1996). On the other hand, failing to apply a strategy, which has been previously successful, does not seem to be enough to make the participant look for alternative strategies (Bilalić et al., 2008b). While not all of these attributes necessarily need to be present to create an Einstellung Effect, they do play together and facilitate its occurrence.
