Abstract

Insight problems are sometimes designed to encourage an incorrect and misleading interpretation that veils a simple answer. The socks problem is one such problem: Given black socks and brown socks in a drawer mixed in a ratio of four to five, how many socks will you have to take out to make sure that you have a pair of the same color? The ratio information is misleading since, with only two colors, pulling three socks will guarantee a matching pair. Recently, offered a distinction between first- and second-order problem-solving: The former proceeds with and through a physical model of the problem, while the latter proceeds in the absence of such interactions with the world, in other words on the basis of mental processes alone. Vallée-Tourangeau and March also proposed a thought experiment, suggesting that the ratio information in the socks problem might be quickly abandoned in a first-order environment, that is, one where participants observe the results of drawing socks out of a bag rather than imagining themselves doing so. We tested this prediction by randomly allocating participants to a low- (second-order) or high- (first-order) interactivity condition. Marginally more participants announced the correct answer within a 5-minute period in the high than in the low condition, although the difference was not significant. Detailed analysis of the video recording revealed the challenges of operationalizing a second-order condition, as participants engaged in dialogical interactions with the experimenter. In addition, the manner in which the high-interactivity condition was designed appeared to encourage the physical reification of the misleading ratio, thus anchoring that information more firmly rather than defusing it through interactivity. We close the paper with some reflections on wide, or systemic, cognition in experimental research on creative problem-solving.

Highlights

  • This report describes a failed experimental manipulation in object-supported problem-solving

  • The riddle goes: If you have black socks and brown socks in a drawer mixed in a ratio of four to five, how many socks will you have to take out to make sure that you have a pair of the same color? The ratio information is misleading since, with only two colors, pulling three socks will guarantee a matching pair

  • The participant is asked “If you have black socks and brown socks in a drawer mixed in a ratio of 4 to 5, how many socks will you have to take out to make sure that you have a pair of the same color?” The problem masquerades as a mathematical problem—the conversational pragmatics forefronts the 4:5—but it is misleading information

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This report describes a failed experimental manipulation in object-supported problem-solving. Our participant reads the problem description and is invited to determine how many socks she will have to sample before getting a pair of matching color She is told she can dig into the bag and pull a few socks, one at a time, to help her solve the problem. The misleading ratio information quickly fails to exert any attraction; rather she’s looking at the results of her sampling from the bag She may pull two black socks from the start, tempted to say that the answer might be “two”, but realises that she’s been lucky, pulls a third one and fourth one, and the solution dawns on her; the solution is distilled through action and results. She may pull two black socks from the start, tempted to say that the answer might be “two”, but realises that she’s been lucky, pulls a third one and fourth one, and the solution dawns on her; the solution is distilled through action and results. (p. 826)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call