======================================================================
= Einstellung effect =
======================================================================
Introduction
======================================================================
Einstellung is the development of a mechanized state of mind. Often
called a problem solving set, Einstellung refers to a person's
predisposition to solve a given problem in a specific manner even
though better or more appropriate methods of solving the problem
exist.
The Einstellung effect is the negative effect of previous experience
when solving new problems. The Einstellung effect has been tested
experimentally in many different contexts.
The most famous example (which led to Luchins and Luchins' coining of
the term) is the Luchins water jar experiment, in which subjects were
asked to solve a series of water jar problems. After solving many
problems which had the same solution, subjects applied the same
solution to later problems even though a simpler solution existed
(Luchins, 1942). Other experiments on the Einstellung effect can be
found in 'The Effect of Einstellung on Compositional Processes' and
'Rigidity of Behavior, A Variational Approach to the Effect of
Einstellung'.
Background
======================================================================
Einstellung literally means "setting" or "installation" as well as a
person's "attitude" in German. Related to Einstellung is what is
referred to as an Aufgabe (literally, "task" in German). The Aufgabe
is the situation which could potentially invoke the Einstellung
effect. It is a task which creates a tendency to execute a previously
applicable behavior. In the Luchins and Luchins experiment a water
jar problem served as the Aufgabe, or task.
Another phenomenon similar to Einstellung is functional fixedness
(Duncker 1945). Functional fixedness is an impaired ability to
discover a new use for an object, owing to the subject's previous use
of the object in a functionally dissimilar context. It can also be
deemed a cognitive bias that limits a person to using an object only
in the way it is traditionally used. Duncker also pointed out that the
phenomenon occurs not only with physical objects, but also with mental
objects or concepts (a point which lends itself nicely to the
phenomenon of Einstellung effect).
The Einstellung effect occurs when a person is presented with a
problem or situation that is similar to problems they have worked
through in the past. If the solution (or appropriate behavior) to the
problem/situation has been the same in each past experience, the
person will likely provide that same response, without giving the
problem too much thought, even though a more appropriate response
might be available. Essentially, the Einstellung effect is one of the
human brain's ways of finding an appropriate solution/behavior as
efficiently as possible. The detail is that though finding the
solution is efficient, the solution 'itself' is not or might not be.
Luchins and Luchins water jar experiment
======================================================================
The water jar test, first described in Abraham Luchins 1942 classic
experiment, is a commonly cited example of an Einstellung situation.
The experiment's participants were given the following problem: you
have 3 water jars, each with the capacity to hold a different, fixed
amount of water; figure out how to measure a certain amount of water
using these jars. It was found that subjects used methods that they
had used previously to find the solution even though there were
quicker and more efficient methods available. The experiment shines
light on how mental sets can hinder the solving of novel problems.
In Luchins experiment, subjects were divided into two groups. The
experimental group was given five practice problems, followed by 4
critical test problems. The control group did not have the five
practice problems. All of the practice problems and some of the
critical problems had only one solution, which was "B minus A minus
2·C.� For example, one is given Jar A capable of holding 21 units of
water, B capable of holding 127, and C capable of holding 3. If an
amount of 100 units must be measured out, the solution is to fill up
Jar B and pour out enough water to fill A once and C twice.
One of the critical problems was called the extinction problem. The
extinction problem was a problem that could not be solved using the
previous solution B � A � 2C. In order to answer the extinction
problem correctly, one had to solve the problem directly and generate
a novel solution. An incorrect solution to the extinction problem
indicated the presence of the Einstellung effect. The problems after
the extinction problem again had two possible solutions. These
post-extinction problems helped determine the recovery of the subjects
from the Einstellung effect.
The critical problems could be solved using this solution (B � A � 2C)
or a shorter solution (A � C or A + C). For example, subjects were
instructed to get 18 units of water from jars with capacities 15, 39,
and 3. Despite the presence of a simpler solution (A + C), subjects in
the experimental group tended to give the lengthier solution in lieu
of the shorter one. Instead of simply filling up Jars A and C, most
subjects from the experimental group preferred the previous method of
B � A � 2C, whereas virtually all of the control group used the
simpler solution. When Luchins and Luchins gave experimental group
subjects the warning, "Don't be blind," over half of them used the
simplest solution to the remaining problems. Thus, this warning helped
reduce the prevalence of the Einstellung effect among the experimental
group.
The results of the water jars experiment illustrates the concept of
Einstellung. The majority of the experimental subjects adopted a
mechanized state of mind and relied on mental sets formed through
previous experience. However, the experimental subjects would have
been more efficient if they had employed the direct method of solving
the problem rather than applying the same solution from previous
examples.
Explanations and interpretations
======================================================================
The Einstellung effect can be supported by theories of inductive
reasoning. In a nutshell, inductive reasoning is the act of inferring
a rule based on a finite number of instances. Most experiments on
human inductive reasoning involve showing subjects a card with an
object (or multiple objects, or letters, etc.) on it. The objects can
vary in number, shape, size, color, etc., and the subject's job is to
answer (initially by guessing) "yes" or "no" whether (or not) the card
is a positive instance of the rule (which must be inferred by the
subject). Over time, the subjects do tend to learn the rule, but the
question is 'how'? Kendler and Kendler (1962) proposed that older
children and adults tend to exhibit 'noncontinuity theory'; that is,
the subjects tend to pick a reasonable rule and assume it to be true
until it proves false. Regarding Einstellung effect, one can view
noncontinuity theory as a way of explaining the tendency to maintain a
specific behavior until it fails to work. In the water-jar problem,
subjects generated a specific rule because it seemed to work in all
situations; when they were given problems for which the same solution
worked, but a better solution was possible, they still gave their
'tried and true' response. Where theories of inductive reasoning tend
to diverge from the idea of Einstellung effect is when analyzing the
fact that, even after an instance where the Einstellung rule failed to
work, many subjects reverted to the old solution when later presented
with a problem for which it did work (again, this problem also had a
better solution). One way to explain this observation is that in
actuality subjects know (consciously) that the same solution might not
always work, yet since they were presented with so many instances
where it did work, they still tend to test that solution before any
other (and so if it works, it will be the first solution found).
Neurologically, the idea of synaptic plasticity, which is an important
neurochemical explanation of memory, can help to understand the
Einstellung effect. Specifically, Hebbian theory (which in many
regards is the neuroscience equivalent of original associationist
theories) is one explanation of synaptic plasticity (Hebb, 1949). It
states that when two associated neurons frequently fire together -
while infrequently firing apart from one another - the strength of
their association tends to become stronger (making future stimulation
of one neuron even more likely to stimulate the other). Since the
frontal lobe is most often attributed with the roles of planning and
problem solving, if there is a neurological pathway which is
fundamental to the understanding of Einstellung effect, the majority
of it most likely falls within the frontal lobe. Essentially, a
Hebbian explanation of Einstellung could be as follows: stimuli are
presented in such a way that the subject recognizes him or herself as
being in a situation which he or she has been in before. That is, the
subject sees, hears, smells, etc., an environment which is akin to an
environment which he or she has been in before. The subject then must
process the stimuli which are presented in such a way that he or she
exhibits a behavior which is appropriate for the situation (be it run,
throw, eat, etc.). Because neural growth is, at least in part, due to
the associations between two events/ideas, it follows that the more a
given stimulus is followed by a specific response, the more likely
that in the future that stimulus will invoke the same response.
Regarding the Luchins� experiment, the stimulus presented was a
water-jar problem (or to be more technical, the stimulus was a piece
of paper which had words and numbers on it which, when interpreted
correctly, portray a water-jar problem) and the invoked response was B
� A � 2C. While it is a bit of a stretch to assume that there is a
direct connection between a 'water-jar problem' and 'B' � 'A' � 2'C'
within the brain, it is not unreasonable to assume that the specific
neural connections which are active during a water-jar problem-state
and those that are active when one thinks �take the second term,
subtract the first term, then subtract two of the third term� tend to
increase in the amount of overlap as more and more instances where B �
A � 2C works are presented.
Psychological stress
======================
The following experiments were designed to gauge the effect of
different stressful situations on the Einstellung effect. Overall,
these experiments show that stressful situations increase the
prevalence of the Einstellung effect.
The speed test
================
Luchins gave an elementary-school class a set of water jar problems.
In order to create a stressful situation, experimenters told the
students that the test would be timed, that the speed and accuracy of
the test would be reviewed by their principal and teachers, and that
the test would affect their grades. To further agitate the students
during the test, experimenters were instructed to comment on how much
slower the children were compared to children in lower grades. The
experimenters observed anxious, stressed, and sometimes tearful faces
during the experiment.
The results of the experiment indicated that the stressful speed test
situation increased rigidity. Luchins found that only three of the
ninety-eight students tested were able to solve the extinction
problem, and only two students used the direct method for the critical
problems. The same experiment conducted under non-stress conditions
showed 70% rigidity during the test problems and 58% failure of the
extinction problem, while the anxiety-inducing situation showed 98%
and 97% respectively.
The speed test was performed with college students as well, which
yielded similar results. Even when college students were told ahead
of time to use the direct method in order to avoid mistakes made by
children, the college students continued to exhibit rigidity under
time pressure. The results of these studies showed that the emphasis
on speed increased the Einstellung effect on the water jar problems.
Maze tracing
==============
Luchins also instructed subjects to draw a solution through a maze
without crossing any of the maze�s lines. The maze was either traced
normally or traced using the mirror reflection of the maze. If the
subject drew over the lines of the figure, they had to start at the
beginning, which was disadvantageous since the subject was told that
their score depended on the time and smoothness of the solution. The
mirror-tracing situation was the stressful situation, and the normal
tracing was the non-stressful, control situation. Experimenters
observed that the mirror-tracing task caused more drawing outside the
boundaries, increased overt signs of stress and anxiety, and required
more time to accurately complete. The mirror-tracing situation
produced 89% Einstellung solution on the first two criticals instead
of the 71% observed for normal tracing. In addition, 55% of the
subjects failed with the mirror while only 18% failed without the
mirror.
Hidden-word test for stutterers
=================================
In 1951, Solomon gave both stutterers and fluent-speakers a
hidden-word test, an arithmetical test, and a mirror-maze test.
Experimenters called the hidden-word test a �speech test� to increase
stutterer anxiety. There were no marked differences between the
stutterers and the fluent-speakers for the arithmetical and
mirror-maze tests. However, the results reveal a significant
difference between the performance of the stutterers and the
fluent-speakers on the "speech test." On the first two critical
problems, 58 percent of the stutterers gave Einstellung solutions
whereas only 4 percent of the fluent speakers showed Einstellung
effects.
Age
=====
The original Luchins and Luchins experiment tested nine-, ten-,
eleven-, and twelve-year-olds for the Einstellung effect. The older
groups showed more Einstellung effects than the younger groups in
general. However, this initial study did not control for differences
in educational level and intelligence.
To remedy this problem, Ross (1952) conducted a study on middle-aged
(mean 37.3 years) and older adults (mean 60.8 years). The adults were
grouped according to the I.Q., years of schooling, and occupation.
Ross administered five Einstellung tests including the arithmetical
(water jar) test, the maze test, the hidden-word test, and two other
tests. For every test, the middle-aged group performed better than
the older group. For example, 65% of the older adults failed the
extinction task of the arithmetical test, whereas only 29% of the
middle-aged adults failed the extinction problem.
Luchins devised another experiment to determine the difference between
Einstellung effects in children and in adults. In this study, 140
fifth-graders (mean 10.5 years) were compared to 79 college students
(mean 21 years) and 21 adults (mean 43 years). Einstellung effects
prior to the extinction task increased with age: the observed
Einstellung effects for the extinction task were 56, 68, and 69
percent for young adults, children, and older adults respectively.
This implies that there exists a curvilinear relationship between age
and the recovery from the Einstellung Effect. A similar experiment
conducted by Heglin in 1955, also found this relationship when the
three age groups were equated for I.Q.
Therefore, the initial manifestation of the Einstellung effect on the
arithmetic test increases with age. However, the recovery from the
Einstellung effect is greatest for young adults (average age 21 years)
and decreases as you move away from this age.
Gender
========
In Luchins and Luchins original experiment with 483 children, they
found that boys demonstrated less Einstellung effects than girls. The
experimental difference was only significant for the group that was
instructed to write �Don�t be blind� on their papers after the sixth
problem (the DBB group). �Don�t be blind� was meant as a reminder to
pay attention and guard against rigidity for the sixth problem.
However, this message was interpreted in many different ways including
thinking of the message as just some more words to remember. The
alternative interpretations occurred more frequently in girls and
increased with IQ score within the female group. This difference in
interpretation of DBB may account for the fact that the male DBB group
showed more direct solutions than their female counterparts.
To determine sex differences in adults, Luchins gave college students
the maze Einstellung test. The female group showed slightly more
(although not statistically significant) Einstellung effects than the
male group. Other studies have provided conflicting data about the
sex differences in the Einstellung effect.
Intelligence
==============
Luchins and Luchins looked at the relationship between the
intelligence quotient (IQ) and the Einstellung effects for the
children in their original experiment. They found that there was a
statistically insignificant negative relationship between the
Einstellung Effect and Intelligence. In general, large Einstellung
effects were observed for all subject groups regardless of IQ score.
When Luchins and Luchins looked at the IQ range for children who did
and did not demonstrate Einstellung effects, they spanned from 51 to
160 and from 75 to 155 respectively. These ranges show a slight
negative correlation between intelligence and Einstellung effects.
See also
======================================================================
* Beginner's mind (antonym)
* ('Einstellung effect' as a) 'wrong' working hypothesis
* Functional fixedness and the candle problem
* Law of the instrument
* Missing square puzzle (a typical 'Einstellung effect')
* Thinking outside the box
References
======================================================================
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
* Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Michigan.
License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstellung_effect
