Problem solving

Defining a problem
• There is a problem when a goal is not immediately able to
be achieved (e.g., Reitman, 1965; Newell & Simon, 1972).
• Problem-solvingis the identification and selection of
solutions to the problem.
 Well-Defined and Ill-Defined
Problems
Well-Defined Problem
• Goal State (clear)
• Initial State (clear)
• Subgoals(problem can be broken down)
• Problem Space (all possible legal moves [operators])
 Tower Of Hanoi (well-defined
problem)
• Move from start state to end state by moving one disk at a
time, and never placing a smaller disk on a larger disk
Problem Space(Newell & Simon)
• All possible legal moves
• Each legal move from the initial state to some intermediate state is
specifically defined by an OPERATOR
 Tower Of Hanoi (the problem
space)
• Well-Defined Problem
• Goal State, Initial State, Subgoals, Problem Space (all possible legal moves
(operator actions))
 Missionaries and Cannibals
How do you advance in your chosen career?
•What is the goal state?
•What is your current state(initial state)
•What are the intermediate goals (subgoaldecomposition)
•What are all possible operations [OPERATORS]that could
be employed (i.e., what is the problem space?)
 Where we are at

• Well-defined problems
• •Your car doesn’t start in the morning and you want to try and find out what’s wrong with it
• •You want to beat an opponent at chess
• •You want to find a street in an unfamiliar city

• Ill-defined problems
• •You want to be happy
• •You want to be successful
• •Draw a picture
• •Write an essay
 Heuristics
Means-End analysis: Identify difference between current
& goal state;
Create sub-goal & select operator that achieves it.
Working backward: Viable only when the goal state is
uniquely well-defined.
Working forward: Starts at the beginning and tries to
solve the problem from the start to the finish.
Generate and test: Simply generates alternative courses
of action, and then notes in turn whether each course of
action will work.
 Productive and Reproductive
Problem Solving
The GESTALT approach to problem solving differentiates
between:
• Productive Thinking: insight and creativity
• Reproductive Thinking: following a sequence known to
produce a workable answer

(Kohler’s and Thorndike’s experiments)

 FUNCTIONAL FIXEDNESS
• Duncker’s(1945) Candle Problem: Participants were
provided a candle, a box of nails, and several other
objects, and asked to attach the candle to the wall so
that it did not drip onto the table below.
• •Participants tried to nail the candle directly to the
wall or to glue it to the wall by melting it. Very few
thought of using the inside of the nail box as a
candle-holder and nailing this to the wall.
• •The participants were “fixated” on the box’s normal
function of holding nails and could not
reconceptualizeit in a manner that allowed them to
solve the problem.
 The Two-String Problem
• Functional fixedness: focusing on how things are
typically used and ignoring other potential uses in solving
a problem.
 Mental set
• All problems except 8 can be solved by B -2C -A.
• For problems 1 through 5 this solution is simplest.
• For problem 7 and 9 the simpler solution is A + C.
• Problem 8 cannot be solved by B -2C -A, but can be solved by A –C
• A tendency to use the same set of solutions to solve similar problems
 Analogical Transfer
• Example: Imagine that you are a surgeon and your patient
has an inoperable stomach tumor. However, one possible
surgical method you think might work is to use a beam of
radiation. A high-intensity beam should destroy the tumor.
However, at high intensities, the beam will also destroy
the surrounding healthy tissue. How can one cure the
patient with these beams and, at the same time, avoid
harming the healthy tissue that surrounds the tumor?
 Analogical Transfer
• Example 2: A small country is ruled by a dictator living in a strong fortress situated in
the middle of the country, surrounded by villages. Many roads radiate outward from
the fortress like spokes on a wheel. A general vows to capture the fortress and free the
country. The general knows that if his entire army could attack the fortress at once it
could be captured, but the dictator had planted mines on each of the roads. The mines
were set so that small bodies of men could pass over them safely; however, any large
force would detonate the mines, destroying the villages. A full-scale direct attack on
the fortress therefore appeared impossible. The general solved the problem by
dividing his army up into small groups and dispatched each group to the head of a
different road. When all was ready he gave the signal, and each group charged down a
different road. All of the small groups passed safely over the mines, and the army then
attacked the fortress in full strength. In this way, the general was able to capture the
fortress and overthrow the dictator.
 Analogical Transfer
• Analogical transfer: using the same solution for two
problems with the same underlying structu
• Past experience with analogous problems can be a
powerful strategy for solving problems (positive transfer)
• Using problems that have strong surface similarities but
different underlying structures leads individuals to
attempt the wrong solutions(negative transfer)
 Classical Decision Theory
• Earliest models of how people make decisions are referred
to as classical decision theory.
The Model of Economic Man and
Woman
1. Decision makers are fully informed regarding all possible
options for their decisions and of all possible outcomes of their
decision options.
2. They are infinitely sensitive to the subtle distinctions among
decision options.
3. They are fully rational in regard to their choice of options
(Edwards, 1954; see also Slovic, 1990).
(Example: a decision maker is considering which of two
smartphones to buy)
 Subjective Expected Utility
Theory
• The goal of human action is to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
• In making decisions, people will seek to maximize pleasure (referred to as
positive utility) and to minimize pain (referred to as negative utility
• Subjective utility: A calculation based on the individual’s judged weightings of
utility (value), rather than on objective criteria.
• Subjective probability: A calculation based on the individual’s estimates of
likelihood, rather than on objective statistical computations.).
• This model is subjective whereas, the former is objective.
• Scientists soon noticed that human decision making is more complex than
eventhis modified theory implies.
 Heuristics and Biases
• Heuristics help us achieve this goal and at the same time
decrease our efforts by allowing us to examine fewer cues
or deal with fewer pieces of information.
• However, sometimes our thinking also gets biased by our
tendencies to make decisions more simply.
• The mental shortcuts of heuristics and biases lighten the
cognitive load of making decisions, but they also allow for
a much greater chance of error.
 Satisficing
• Bounded rationality—we are rational, but within limits.
• Classical decision theory suggested that people optimize their decisions. But we
have only limited resources and time to make a decision, so often we try to get as
close as possible to optimizing, without actually optimizing.
• Satisficing: we consider options one by one, and then we select an option as soon
as we find one that is satisfactory or just good enough to meet our minimum level
of acceptability
• If working-memory resources are limited the use of satisficing for making
decisions may be increased.
• Satisficing might be a reasonable strategy if you are in a hurry to buy a pack of
gum and then catch a train or a plane, but a poor strategy for diagnosing a
disease.
 Elimination by Aspects
• Eliminate alternatives by focusing on aspects of each alternative, one at a time.
• Example: Trying to decide which college to attend:
1. focus on one aspect (attribute) of the various options (the cost of going to college);
2. form a minimum criterion for that aspect (tuition must be under $20,000 per year);
3. eliminate all options that do not meet that criterion (e.g., Stanford University is more than
$30,000 and would be eliminated);
4. for the remaining options, select a second aspect for which we set a minimum criterion by
which to eliminate additional options (the college must be on the West Coast); and
5. continue using a sequential process of elimination of options by considering a series of
aspects until a single option remains (Dawes, 2000).
• Another example: choosing a car to buy
 Representativeness Heuristic
• G B G B B G, B G B B B B

• In representativeness, we judge the probability of an uncertain event according to:

1. how obviously it is similar to or representative of the population from which it is derived; and
2. the degree to which it reflects the salient features of the process by which it is generated (such as
randomness)
• first birth order is more likely because:
1. it is more representative of the number of females and males in the population;
2. it looks more like a random order than does the second birth order
• People often say that random things “don’t look random” because they expect randomness
to have no patterns or repeated elements.
• This flawed thinking makes us vulnerable to tricks by magicians or con artists.
• If you see clouds, you might think it’s likely to rain because cloudy days are often
associated with rain.
 Representativeness Heuristic
• We often assume that small groups (like a few people we know) are
exactly like the larger group they come from, which isn’t always true.
• Anecdotal Evidence and "Man-Who" Arguments: People often
dismiss general statistics by focusing on a single personal story or
anecdote (high cholesterol-heart disease).
• Anecdotes are vivid and easy to remember, while statistics feel abstract
and impersonal.
• Base rate refers to the prevalence of an event or characteristic within
its population of events or characteristics ( 10 year old –chest pain)
 Availability Heuristic
• A mental shortcut where people make judgments based on how easily
examples come to mind.
• We judge the likelihood of something based on how easily we can think of
examples. Letter R example, Household chores example.
• People were asked to estimate how many seven-letter words fit these
patterns:
• Words ending in "-ing" (_ _ _ _ing).
• Words with "n" as the second-to-last letter (_ _ _ _ _ n_).
• Although riding a car is statistically much more risky than riding in a
plane
 Anchoring
• People adjust their evaluations of things by means of certain reference
points called end-anchors.
1. 8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1 = 2,250.
2. 1*2*3*4*5*6*7*8 = 512. (40,320)
• Adjustment people make in response to an anchor is bigger when the
anchor is rounded than when it seems to be a precise value. (3000,
2991)
• For example, at art auctions, where the price of paintings is anchored
by the price the painting achieved in prior sales, or monthly economic
forecasts, which are anchored toward the past month
 Framing
• Framing effects: the way that the options are presented influences
the selection of an option.
• When choices are framed as gains, people tend to be risk-averse.
They prefer a smaller but guaranteed gain over a larger, uncertain
one unless the uncertain option is significantly more appealing.
• Suppose that you were told that 600 people were at risk of dying of a
particular disease. Vaccine A could save the lives of 200 of the people
at risk. With Vaccine B, there is a 0.33 likelihood that all 600 people
would be saved, but there is also a 0.66 likelihood that all 600 people
will die.
 Biases: 1. Illusory Correlation
• We are predisposed to see particular events or attributes
and categories as going together, even when they do not.
• Eg: A correlation between the political party and the
particular characteristics
• May influence psychiatric diagnoses based on projective
tests such as the Rorschach and the Draw-a-Person tests:
people diagnosed with paranoia tend to draw people with
large eyes more than do people with other diagnoses
(which is not true).
 Overconfidence
• An individual’s overvaluation of her or his own skills,
knowledge, or judgment.
• Reason for overconfidence-
1. People may not realize how little they know.
2. They may not realize that their information comes from
unreliable sources
• Businesses sometimes use our tendencies toward
overconfidence to their own advantage (mobile recharge).
 Hindsight Bias
• We look at a situation retrospectively, we believe we easily can see all the
signs and events leading up to a particular outcome.
• For example, suppose people are asked to predict the outcomes of
psychological experiments in advance of the experiments.
• When intimate personal relationships are in trouble- “Why didn’t I see it
coming? It was so obvious! I should have seen the signs.”
• Hindsight bias hinders learning
• Investment bankers’ performance suffers when they exhibit a strong
hindsight bias.
• Experience does not reduce the bias
 Benefits of Group Decisions
• Working as a group can enhance the effectiveness of decision making.
• By forming decision-making teams, the group benefits from the expertise of each of
the members (increase in resource, idea and memory).
• Successful groups:
• the group is small;
• it has open communication;
• members share a common mind-set;
• members identify with the group; and
• members agree on acceptable group behavior
• In juries, members share more information during decision making when the group
is made up of diverse members
 Groupthink
• Groupthink is a phenomenon characterized by premature decision
making that is generally the result of group members attempting to
avoid conflict (Janis, 1971).
• Conditions lead to groupthink:
1. An isolated, cohesive, and homogeneous group is empowered to make
decisions;
2. Objective and impartial leadership is absent, within the group or outside it;
and
3. High levels of stress impinge on the group decision-making process. ( also
anxiety)
 Symptoms of groupthink
• Closed-mindedness
• Rationalization
• Squelching of dissent
• Formation of a “mindguard” for the group
• Feeling invulnerable
• Feeling unanimous
 Antidotes for Groupthink
• The leader of a group should encourage constructive
criticism, be impartial, and ensure that members seek
input from people outside the group.
• The group should also form subgroups that meet
separately to consider alternative solutions to a single
problem.
• It is important that the leader take responsibility for
preventing spurious conformity to a group norm.
 Deductive Reasoning
• Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from one or more general
statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion.
• Deductive reasoning is based on logical propositions
• A proposition is basically an assertion, which may be either true or false
(Cognitive psychology students are brilliant,Cognitive psychology students wear shoes).
• Premises are propositions about which arguments are made.
• Deductive reasoning is useful because it helps people connect various
propositions to draw conclusions
• One type of deductive reasoning is conditional reasoning
 Conditional Reasoning
• In conditional reasoning, the reasoner must draw a conclusion based on
an if-then proposition.
• The conditional if-then proposition states that if antecedent condition p is
met, then consequent event q follows. – well reasoned conclusion.
• (1-If students study hard, then they score high on their exams. 2-If
students eat pizza, then they score high on their exams. They eat pizza
Therefore, they score high on their exams).
• “If p,then q. p. Therefore, q.” This inference illustrates deductive validity.
• Deductive validity does not equate with truth.
• Modus ponens argument, the reasoner affirms the
antecedent (p).
• (If you are a husband, then you are married. Harrison is a
husband. Therefore, he is married)
• some inferences based on conditional reasoning are fallacies, which
lead to conclusions that are not deductively valid.
• When using conditional propositions, we cannot reach a deductively
valid conclusion based either on denying the antecedent condition or
on affirming the consequent.
• If you are a husband, then you are married
• Joan is not a husband. Therefore, she is not married
• Joan is married. Therefore, she is a husband
• .
 Inductive Reasoning
• Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from specific
facts or observations to reach a likely conclusion that may
explain the facts.
• Then may use that probable conclusion to attempt to predict
future specific instances.
• Never can reach a logically certain conclusion; can reach a
particularly well-founded or probable conclusion (all the people
enrolled in your cognitive psychology course are on the dean’s list, you could reason
inductively that all students who enroll in cognitive psychology are excellent students)
• new riddle of induction: 2, 4, 6, (2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22,)
• You cannot form the conclusion then that all swans are white because the next
swan you happen upon might be black. Indeed, black swans do exist.
• Rejecting the null hypothesis
• Two of the reasons why people use inductive reasoning.
1. It helps them to become increasingly able to make sense out of the great variability in
their environment.
2. It also helps them to predict events in their environment, thereby reducing their
uncertainty.
• We make inferences by generalizing some broad understandings from a set of
specific instances. As we observe additional instances, we further broaden our
understanding. (birds, penguin)
 Causal Inferences
• Causal inferences: how people make judgments about
whether something causes something else.
• We are most likely to infer causality when we observe
covariation over time
• Correlational evidence cannot indicate the direction of
causation (bias)
• Discounting error (car accident causes example)
• Confirmation bias
 Categorical Inferences
• People generally use both bottom-up strategies and top-down strategies for
drawing inferences
• Bottom-up strategies are based on observing various instances and
considering the degree of variability across instances.
• From these observations, we abstract a prototype.
• Once a prototype or a category has been induced, the individual may use
focused sampling to add new instances to the category.
• He or she focuses chiefly on properties that have provided useful
distinctions in the past.
• Top-down strategies include selectively searching for constancies within
many variations and selectively combining existing concepts and categories.
 Reasoning by Analogy
• Inductive reasoning may be applied to reasoning by analogy.
• Fire is to asbestos as water is to: (a) vinyl, (b) air, (c) cotton, (d) faucet.
• Most of the time spent in solving simple verbal analogies is spent in
encoding the terms and in responding (Sternberg, 1977).
RAT : TAR :: BAT : (a. CONCRETE, b. MAMMAL, c. TAB, d. TAIL)
AUDACIOUS : TIMOROUS :: MITIGATE :
(a. ADUMBRATE, b. EXACERBATE, c. EXPOSTULATE, d. EVISCERATE)