Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Rakefet Ackerman, Liat Levontin
{"title":"Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving","authors":"Rakefet Ackerman, Liat Levontin","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractUnderstanding time investment while solving problems is central to metacognitive research. By the Diminishing Criterion Model (DCM), time regulation is guided by two stopping rules: a confidence criterion that drops as time is invested in each problem and the maximum time to be invested. This combination generates curved confidence–time associations. We compared the belief that intelligence is malleable, a growth mindset, to the belief that intelligence is fixed, and to neutral control groups. We hypothesized that a growth mindset leads people to selectively invest time in problems carrying the hope of improvement. This extra time makes the curved DCM pattern curvier. In two experiments, participants primed with growth, fixed, or control mindsets solved analogies (Experiment 1) and compound remote associates (Experiment 2). As expected, in both experiments a growth mindset exhibited a curvier confidence–time pattern, while the fixed mindset and control groups replicated previous confidence–time associations. Most additional time was invested in problems with intermediate difficulty levels, suggesting strategic time allocation. The study offers useful measures for delving into factors that affect thinking time allocation.Keywords: Growth mindsetproblem-solvingmeta-reasoningmetacognitiontime regulation AcknowledgmentsWe thank Meira Ben-Gad for editorial assistance.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In Ackerman, Yom-Tov, et al. (2020), the confidence scale appeared on a separate page. The rest of the solving procedure was identical.2 We used this phrase as the low end of the scale consistently across the experiments, rather than a phrase conveying guessing by chance. This was done so that the scale would start at zero in both experiments, regardless of whether the task format was multiple-choice or open-ended.3 For addressing the lack of remaining self-report difference in mindset at the end of the task, we made several additional analyses. First, we analyzed the two experiments together, examining the tendency towards a fixed mindset by an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with experiment and group as two between-participant factors. We found a main effect of the group, F(2, 304) = 4.95, MSE = 23.47, p = .008, η2p = .032. A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that there was a significant difference between fixed and growth mindsets, p = .005, while other differences were not significant, both ps > .09. Importantly, there was no interactive effect with experiment, F(2, 304) = 0.574, MSE = 2.72, p = .564, η2p = .004, suggesting on comparable manipulation effect on both experiments. Second, we examined order effects within the set of problems each participant solved on the central analysis for this study, of confidence-time association. Indeed, the curve difference was found in the second half of the task, β = -1.34, SE = 0.39, t(2137) = 3.47, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.44, -0.33], indicating that the effect remained well into the later stages of this demanding task.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

AbstractUnderstanding time investment while solving problems is central to metacognitive research. By the Diminishing Criterion Model (DCM), time regulation is guided by two stopping rules: a confidence criterion that drops as time is invested in each problem and the maximum time to be invested. This combination generates curved confidence–time associations. We compared the belief that intelligence is malleable, a growth mindset, to the belief that intelligence is fixed, and to neutral control groups. We hypothesized that a growth mindset leads people to selectively invest time in problems carrying the hope of improvement. This extra time makes the curved DCM pattern curvier. In two experiments, participants primed with growth, fixed, or control mindsets solved analogies (Experiment 1) and compound remote associates (Experiment 2). As expected, in both experiments a growth mindset exhibited a curvier confidence–time pattern, while the fixed mindset and control groups replicated previous confidence–time associations. Most additional time was invested in problems with intermediate difficulty levels, suggesting strategic time allocation. The study offers useful measures for delving into factors that affect thinking time allocation.Keywords: Growth mindsetproblem-solvingmeta-reasoningmetacognitiontime regulation AcknowledgmentsWe thank Meira Ben-Gad for editorial assistance.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In Ackerman, Yom-Tov, et al. (2020), the confidence scale appeared on a separate page. The rest of the solving procedure was identical.2 We used this phrase as the low end of the scale consistently across the experiments, rather than a phrase conveying guessing by chance. This was done so that the scale would start at zero in both experiments, regardless of whether the task format was multiple-choice or open-ended.3 For addressing the lack of remaining self-report difference in mindset at the end of the task, we made several additional analyses. First, we analyzed the two experiments together, examining the tendency towards a fixed mindset by an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with experiment and group as two between-participant factors. We found a main effect of the group, F(2, 304) = 4.95, MSE = 23.47, p = .008, η2p = .032. A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that there was a significant difference between fixed and growth mindsets, p = .005, while other differences were not significant, both ps > .09. Importantly, there was no interactive effect with experiment, F(2, 304) = 0.574, MSE = 2.72, p = .564, η2p = .004, suggesting on comparable manipulation effect on both experiments. Second, we examined order effects within the set of problems each participant solved on the central analysis for this study, of confidence-time association. Indeed, the curve difference was found in the second half of the task, β = -1.34, SE = 0.39, t(2137) = 3.47, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.44, -0.33], indicating that the effect remained well into the later stages of this demanding task.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation.
心态对解决问题时思考时间的调节作用
摘要理解解决问题时的时间投入是元认知研究的核心。根据递减准则模型(DCM),时间调节由两个停止规则指导:一个是随着每个问题投入时间的增加而下降的置信准则,另一个是投入的最大时间。这种组合产生了弯曲的信心时间关联。我们比较了智力是可塑的,一种成长心态,和智力是固定的,以及中立的控制组。我们假设,成长型思维模式会导致人们有选择地把时间投入到带有改善希望的问题上。这段额外的时间使弯曲的DCM模式更加弯曲。在两个实验中,被试分别被增长型、固定型和控制型思维模式启动,分别解决了类比(实验1)和复合远程关联(实验2)。正如预期的那样,在这两个实验中,增长型思维模式呈现出曲线型的信心时间模式,而固定型思维模式和控制型思维模式重复了之前的信心时间关联。大多数额外的时间都花在了中等难度的问题上,这表明时间分配是有策略的。这项研究为深入研究影响思考时间分配的因素提供了有用的方法。关键词:成长心态解决问题元推理元认知时间调节感谢Meira Ben-Gad的编辑协助。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1在Ackerman, yo - tov, et al.(2020)中,置信度量表出现在单独的页面上。其余的求解过程是相同的在整个实验中,我们一直使用这个短语作为量表的低端,而不是一个表达偶然猜测的短语。这样做是为了在两个实验中,无论任务形式是选择题还是开放式的,量表都会从零开始为了解决在任务结束时缺乏自我报告的心态差异,我们做了一些额外的分析。首先,我们一起分析了两个实验,通过方差分析(ANOVA),以实验和群体作为两个参与者之间的因素,检验了固定心态的倾向。我们发现主效应组,F(2,304) = 4.95, MSE = 23.47, p = 0.008, η2p = 0.032。Tukey事后检验显示,固定心态和成长心态之间存在显著差异,p = 0.005,而其他差异不显著,均为p = 0.09。重要的是,与实验没有交互作用,F(2,304) = 0.574, MSE = 2.72, p = 0.564, η2p = 0.004,表明两个实验的操作效果可比较。其次,我们在本研究的中心分析中检查了每个参与者解决的问题集内的顺序效应,即置信度时间关联。事实上,在任务的后半段发现了曲线差异,β = -1.34, SE = 0.39, t(2137) = 3.47, p < .001, 95% CI[-1.44, -0.33],表明这种效果一直持续到这个高要求任务的后期阶段。本研究得到了以色列科学基金会的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信