Transfer of Object-Function in Problem Solving

Abstract

Schulz (1960) has suggested that antecedent conditions of positive transfer in certain of the problem solving situations must be given more consideration than has previously been the case. He appropriately indicates that (p. 62) timeworn exhortation to teach for transfer is not enough. We need to know more explicitly and precisely when, how, what, or what not to teach in order to produce positive transfer. This need is exceptionally acute with respect to the area of problem solving because of the extent to which problem solving behavior is involved in virtually all activities of an intellectual nature. One class of problems regarded as involving problem solving behavior is Duncker's (1945) functional-fixedness problem. The general design requires the performance of Task A in which the habitual function of an object is made salient. Then Task B is performed in which the object is used in a unique manner different from the function in Task A. Presumably, a use-meaning (function) of an object is so fixed in Task A that perceptions of new or unusual uses for the object in Task B are hindered. In the simplest design a control group performs only Task B. This design clearly conforms to the transfer paradigm. Most studies of functional fixedness have employed designs that emphasize variables related only to attenuation of functional fixedness, that is, of variables that hinder effective problem solving. However, as Bond (1955), Flavell, Cooper, and Loiselle (1958), and Schulz all indicate, an equally interesting problem is the possibility of manipulating functional similarity between the components of Task A and Task B. Functional similarity may be increased by the use of S's or E's ratings of the object(s) that might be used in Task A and Task B. Or, as Cofer (1957) has demonstrated (though not on the functional-fixedness problem) performance on Task B can be facilitated by pre-training in Task A with verbalizations related to the functions required to solve Task B. Also of importance to the present study is a design employed by Flavell, et al. The general procedure used was briefly, as follows: In the preutilization task the El group performed only one specialized function (one task) with a microswitch; the E2 group performed one specialized and one nonspecialized function (two tasks); the E3 groups performed