廉价项链问题的理论驱动线索初探

Yun Chu, Andrew D. Dewald, E. Chronicle
{"title":"廉价项链问题的理论驱动线索初探","authors":"Yun Chu, Andrew D. Dewald, E. Chronicle","doi":"10.7771/1932-6246.1010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we conducted three experiments using the cheap necklace problem, which is regarded as an insight problem. The effects of two hints derived from two contemporary theoretical accounts of insight—Criterion for Satisfactory Progress theory (CSP) and Representational Change Theory (RCT)—were investigated. In Experiment 1, 78 participants made a single attempt at the problem, and significantly fewer participants given the CSP hint used an incorrect (maximizing) first move than participants given the RCT hint or control participants given no hint, Fisher’s exact test for 2x3 table, p = .029, with an approximation in χ² effect size, phi = .340. Experiment 2 explored the performance of 60 participants in the same hint conditions over ten problem-solving trials. The number of trials to solution was significantly fewer in the CSP hint condition than in the control condition, t(30) = 2.23, p = .033, η² = .14; this was not so for the RCT hint condition, t(30) = .44, p = .666, η² = .006. Furthermore, there were significantly fewer incorrect (maximizing) first moves in the CSP hint condition than in the other two conditions, F(2, 59) = 15.31, p < .001, η² = .35. The CSP hint here appears to promote the exploration of the problem space, such that the correct move may be found. The lack of effect of the RCT hint suggests in preliminary fashion that representational change may not be the primary cognitive process required to solve the cheap necklace problem. However, in Experiment 3 with 110 participants, the CSP and RCT hints were combined yielding a 75% solution rate over a 34.88% solution rate in the control condition, χ²(1) = 16.03, p < .001, phi = .402. This result indicates that perhaps aspects from both theories are employed during the problem solving process.","PeriodicalId":90070,"journal":{"name":"The journal of problem solving","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theory Driven Hints in the Cheap Necklace Problem: A Preliminary Investigation\",\"authors\":\"Yun Chu, Andrew D. Dewald, E. Chronicle\",\"doi\":\"10.7771/1932-6246.1010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper we conducted three experiments using the cheap necklace problem, which is regarded as an insight problem. The effects of two hints derived from two contemporary theoretical accounts of insight—Criterion for Satisfactory Progress theory (CSP) and Representational Change Theory (RCT)—were investigated. In Experiment 1, 78 participants made a single attempt at the problem, and significantly fewer participants given the CSP hint used an incorrect (maximizing) first move than participants given the RCT hint or control participants given no hint, Fisher’s exact test for 2x3 table, p = .029, with an approximation in χ² effect size, phi = .340. Experiment 2 explored the performance of 60 participants in the same hint conditions over ten problem-solving trials. The number of trials to solution was significantly fewer in the CSP hint condition than in the control condition, t(30) = 2.23, p = .033, η² = .14; this was not so for the RCT hint condition, t(30) = .44, p = .666, η² = .006. Furthermore, there were significantly fewer incorrect (maximizing) first moves in the CSP hint condition than in the other two conditions, F(2, 59) = 15.31, p < .001, η² = .35. The CSP hint here appears to promote the exploration of the problem space, such that the correct move may be found. The lack of effect of the RCT hint suggests in preliminary fashion that representational change may not be the primary cognitive process required to solve the cheap necklace problem. However, in Experiment 3 with 110 participants, the CSP and RCT hints were combined yielding a 75% solution rate over a 34.88% solution rate in the control condition, χ²(1) = 16.03, p < .001, phi = .402. This result indicates that perhaps aspects from both theories are employed during the problem solving process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of problem solving\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of problem solving\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of problem solving","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

在本文中,我们使用廉价项链问题进行了三个实验,该问题被视为一个洞察力问题。本文研究了两种提示的影响,这两种提示来自于两种当代的理论描述——满意进展标准理论(CSP)和表征变化理论(RCT)。在实验1中,78名参与者对问题进行了一次尝试,与给予RCT提示的参与者或没有给予提示的对照组参与者相比,给予CSP提示的参与者使用了不正确(最大化)的第一步,Fisher对2x3表的精确检验,p = 0.029,在χ 2效应大小中近似,phi = 0.340。实验2探讨了60名参与者在相同提示条件下的10次问题解决试验的表现。CSP提示组的试验次数显著少于对照组,t(30) = 2.23, p = 0.033, η²= 0.14;在RCT提示条件下,t(30) = .44, p = .666, η²= .006。此外,CSP提示条件下的错误(最大化)第一步显著少于其他两个条件,F(2,59) = 15.31, p < 0.001, η²= 0.35。这里的CSP提示似乎促进了对问题空间的探索,从而可以找到正确的移动。RCT提示的缺乏效果初步表明表征变化可能不是解决廉价项链问题所需的主要认知过程。然而,在有110名参与者的实验3中,CSP和RCT提示相结合,在对照条件下,75%的解决率高于34.88%的解决率,χ 2 (1) = 16.03, p < .001, phi = .402。这一结果表明,在解决问题的过程中,可能使用了两种理论的某些方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Theory Driven Hints in the Cheap Necklace Problem: A Preliminary Investigation
In this paper we conducted three experiments using the cheap necklace problem, which is regarded as an insight problem. The effects of two hints derived from two contemporary theoretical accounts of insight—Criterion for Satisfactory Progress theory (CSP) and Representational Change Theory (RCT)—were investigated. In Experiment 1, 78 participants made a single attempt at the problem, and significantly fewer participants given the CSP hint used an incorrect (maximizing) first move than participants given the RCT hint or control participants given no hint, Fisher’s exact test for 2x3 table, p = .029, with an approximation in χ² effect size, phi = .340. Experiment 2 explored the performance of 60 participants in the same hint conditions over ten problem-solving trials. The number of trials to solution was significantly fewer in the CSP hint condition than in the control condition, t(30) = 2.23, p = .033, η² = .14; this was not so for the RCT hint condition, t(30) = .44, p = .666, η² = .006. Furthermore, there were significantly fewer incorrect (maximizing) first moves in the CSP hint condition than in the other two conditions, F(2, 59) = 15.31, p < .001, η² = .35. The CSP hint here appears to promote the exploration of the problem space, such that the correct move may be found. The lack of effect of the RCT hint suggests in preliminary fashion that representational change may not be the primary cognitive process required to solve the cheap necklace problem. However, in Experiment 3 with 110 participants, the CSP and RCT hints were combined yielding a 75% solution rate over a 34.88% solution rate in the control condition, χ²(1) = 16.03, p < .001, phi = .402. This result indicates that perhaps aspects from both theories are employed during the problem solving process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信