TWO METHODS OF PRESENTING INFORMATION AND THEIR EFFECTS ON PROBLEM SOLVING

Abstract

Summary.-In a perceptual condition (P), informauon critical to the solution of a problem was presented by means of a simple demonstration; in a verbal condition (V), this same information was presented by means of a short verbal statement; and in a control condition (C), this information was not presented at all. There was a significant linear trend (p < .001) between information condition and solution score such that solution scores for P were higher than those for V and those for V were higher than those for C. In addition, most Ss (80%) reported using images, and imaging was positively correlated with solution score (T = .55, p = .03) in the P condition and only in that condition. Bruner ( 1764), Hebb ( 1747), and Piaget (Flavell, 1763) have presented evidence showing that early thinking is heavily dependent upon concrete, perceptual experience; and Heidbreder, Bensley, and Ivy (1748) and deGroot (1966) have presented evidence which suggests that perceptual factors are important in adult thinking, as well. An experiment by Szekely (1750) suggests another line of evidence in support of the notion that perceptual factors play an important part in the thinking of adults. Szekely compared the effects of two methods of presenting information on the availability of the information in subsequent problem solving. In his 'traditional method' condition, Ss first read a text and then watched a demonstration. In his 'modern method' condition, the demonstration preceded the text, and Ss were asked to predict the results of the demonstration before watching it. After from 2 to 4 days, all Ss were given a problem to solve which required that they apply the information they had been given. A greater number of Ss in the modern than in the traditional group solved the problem. Maltzman, Eisman, and Brooks ( 1956) attempted to replicate Szekely's results and failed. They were unable to offer any explanation for the discrepancy between their resi~lts and those of Szekely. One purpose of the present study, then, was to determine whether Szekely's results could be replicated. A second purpose was to eliminate a source of confounding in Szekely's experiment, so that the results could be brought to bear on the question of the relation between perception and thought. The modern and traditional conditions in Szekely's experiment differed in both 'order of information' and 'discovery'