Thoughtful Questions

Memory has a pervasive influence on how and what we think. We consider only those events that we can recall; perceptions of risk are determined by the number of risky events we remember; we assess probabilities and reasons depending on what we can remember. We can only think of those things that can be recalled, so memory is a central mediator of all thinking.

The relationship among learning, retaining, and recalling is one of time. Retention occurs during the time period between learning and recalling. A failure in any of these three components will result in forgetting.

All thinking skills are affected by the ability to remember. Because very vivid, dramatic, salient events are highly memorable, people easily recall them, which may lead to overestimations of the frequency of such events (e.g., a recent plane crash or shark attack may lead to overestimations of how often these events occur). Because crime is very vivid and available, with the latest gruesome crime described in detail over and over as the leading story on all the network news channels, people are likely to overestimate crime rates. People are also likely to perceive that crime is increasing in frequency (i.e., that crime rates are going up), when crime is actually decreasing.

The relationship among learning, retaining, and recalling involves the passage of time. Learning and retaining are not readily observable; they must be inferred from the activity of recall (e.g., answering a test question). The reason a fact is not recalled later can be explained in a variety of ways, including that the information was never learned in the first place; the person learned the information but has forgotten it; or that the person could recall the information given the appropriate recall cues. Learning and recalling are time-based because information learned at acquisition (Time 1) is displayed or recalled at Time 2. Memories are particularly likely to fade over time if they are not accessed for significant lengths of time.

They are hypothetical constructs because they have no tangible existence. Learning and memory are terms that have been “invented” to provide a way of thinking about these ideas or explanations. Other examples are motivation and emotion.

You need to pay attention to learn information. It is an important component in the learning formula. Attention is limited and it sometimes requires effort to keep attention focused on the to-be-remembered information. There are individual differences in the amount of attention that is needed to learn new material. Familiar material often requires less attention than unfamiliar material.

Motor memory is used for motor tasks, such as catching and throwing a ball. Episodic memory is for personal events in which we can recall our own participation, such as a 21st birthday or the day a parent died. Procedural memory is a “how to”–type memory, such as remembering how to move a paragraph in a word processing system. Semantic memory is memory for words, numbers and other facts. Automatic memory is memory for information that seems to be learned effortlessly, such as the number of movies you saw this month.

1. semantic
2. motor
3. recall for events at the party will be episodic
4. automatic
5. procedural

Stereotypes influence what we attend to, what happens to information during a retention interval, how we make sense out of experiences, and how we “fill in” gaps in memory. An experimental example that was described in the text concerned a story about a young woman in which half of the subjects read that she was a lesbian and half did not. Those who read that she is now a lesbian recalled reading that she rarely dated, whereas those who did not read that she was now a lesbian did not “recall” this factually incorrect information.

Implicit memories are memories that cannot be accessed by the usual methods of responding—one may be unaware of these memories up to the point of recall. For example, a person is raised in a home where Italian is spoken, but reports being unable to remember many Italian words. The person then takes a class in Italian and learns rapidly, suggesting unconscious memory of the language. The illusion of truth refers to information that was encountered previously that, although proven false, makes it more likely that one would believe the information when it is encountered a second time than if one had not been told the original lie (Wegner, Wenzlaff, Kerker, & Beatie, 1981). In other words, the information may feel familiar or appealing, simply because it has been previously processed at some level. Déjà vu may occur when implicit memories are activated without conscious awareness through contextual cues. The person is unable to identify the cue or the memory clearly, but simply has a feeling of “I’ve done this” or “I’ve been here before.”

Much information is learned through incidental learning, including popular brand names of products that have never been used. For example, although never having mopped a floor, my husband insists that he knows the kind of mop to buy (more than I do, having mopped 5,000 floors), simply because of his feeling of familiarity with this type of mop. As mere exposure increases familiarity, a feeling of liking may be experienced for brand-name products learned about incidentally.

Memory without awareness may result from classical conditioning. In their propaganda films, the Nazis paired images of Jewish faces with swarms of rats, an obviously extremely negative stimulus. In this way, negative feelings are associated with Jewish faces, exactly the result the Nazis were undoubtedly hoping for. Television commercials commonly pair very positive stimuli (e.g., beautiful people, pleasant music and scenery) with their products, undoubtedly in an attempt to increase positive associations with products to increase sales.

Answers will vary. Organized information is more easily acquired and recalled later, mainly because organized information is stored in a large chunk or set rather than piece by piece. Thus, recalling one part of the set may facilitate recall of the entire set or chunk.

When something is malleable, it can easily be twisted into different shapes. Memory also changes over time, so that it is sometimes like a soft metal, in that it can be changed.

Research indicates that if we encounter new information about an event after it takes place, we are likely to confuse the new information with our original memory; the original memory does not become “clearer” or better with time (i.e., we are likely to add new information and delete old information from our memories for events). In this way, we may remember an event not as it actually occurred, but based on information we have acquired about the event over time. Research (Schmolck, Buffalo, & Squire, 2000) indicates that memories are frequently inaccurate and sometimes completely wrong; we tend to fill in missing information in memory with information that “fits” with our belief system or was acquired after the event occurred. There is very little relationship between memory accuracy and confidence—we are often highly confident that we are remembering an event exactly as it happened, when in fact the memory is partly or wholly wrong.

Metamemory refers to one’s personal knowledge of his or her own memory system. Research indicates that much of the difference between good and poor learners can be attributed to metamemory. Effective learners are more aware of what they need to do to perform effectively and to remember accurately. People who are mindful pay attention to their thought processes and monitor the effectiveness of their thinking. People who are more mindful and more aware of their own learning needs may be more likely to make ease-of-learning judgments, or assessments of the ease with which one expects to achieve learning or mastery of the material. Preparing one’s cognitive effort and strategies beforehand, through ease-of-learning judgments, may improve memory simply because the individual is being planful, mindful, and thoughtful.

Metamemory is an individual’s knowledge about her or his own memory system. For example, if you know that you have a difficult time remembering names, then you can put more deliberate effort into attending to and recalling names. Similarly, if you assess what you know about a topic before you begin studying, you can plan study time and effort accordingly. Meaningful information is easier to learn and recall than meaningless (or low meaning) information. If you remain aware of how much meaning you are gaining from information you are learning, you can also decide when to reread and when to seek assistance with learning. These are valuable skills that help in school situations and in much of life.

Numerous ideas for monitoring learning were presented. Stop at short intervals and write out brief summaries of what is being said or read. If you cannot do this (without the material in front of you), then you are not learning and the information will not be recalled. Other suggestions include generating multiple cues, relating new information to previously learned information, and applying new information in novel settings.

All mnemonics require that the learner attend to the information that has to be learned. They often require the use of both imagery and verbal representations, and the use of two forms of internal representation is a helpful memory aid. Mnemonics take advantage of rhyming when order is important and an out-of-order recall will destroy the rhyme. Perhaps, most importantly, they require conscious thought about how to remember best—and best often involves the use of an external aid that reduces the load on working memory.

Keywords and images: An interacting image is used so that when two words need to be recalled together, the image is generated and the learner describes the image.

Rhyme: Uses meter and rhythm to keep items in order and to reduce the number of chunks used in recall.

Method of places: A list of items is imaged along a route with one item per landmark. When recall is needed, the learner has only to “travel” the route and note items that are “stored” at the landmarks.

First letters: The first letter of various items in a list are arranged into a single word (usually with vowels added) or into a single sentence.

The cognitive interview is useful whenever a particular event needs to be recalled and accuracy is important (for whatever reason). In a cognitive interview, the person doing the remembering is encouraged to recall events that preceded the one that is being recalled. The story is told both backward and forward. Imagery is used and partial cues are “worked on” in memory.

The underlying representation is the meaning that a speaker or writer wants to convey. The surface structure is the speech sounds or letters used to express that meaning. The “gap” between them is the problem of transforming meaning into a sound or written pattern that will result in the same meaning in the mind of the receiver.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity states that the words that we use to express a thought influence what we think. Thus, we think differently about a 16-year-old person when we use the word “teenager” to describe her than when we use the term “young adult.”

The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that meaning is determined by the words that are used. In the weaker version, meaning is influenced, but not completely determined by the words that are used. The weak version allows for the influence of other variables.

Communication depends as much on information that is implied as it does on the words that are explicitly stated. Comprehension of meaningful material will always require the listener or reader to make inferences by going beyond the words uttered. Bruner (1957) defined thinking as “going beyond the information given.” Thus, communication cannot occur without inference. The Rules of Clear Communication require inferences by the communicator, including telling listeners what one thinks they want to know; not telling listeners what they already know; varying communication based on inferences about knowledge and status; and inferring that particular meanings will be communicated with particular mannerisms and within particular contexts.

There were several examples given in the text. Students could list the study on the frequency of headaches, in which the use of the word “occasionally” or “frequently” led subjects to give different estimates. The study on what viewers believed about the value of gargling to prevent colds is another possibility.

It is important to consider the choice of words when the outcome is important and when there is reason to believe that the person using the words wants a particular sort of outcome. Certainly, any trial or any attempt to get consumers to part with their money is a good example of a time when words may be used to make a particular outcome more likely.

Etymology is useful and fun, but the origin of a word does not necessarily reflect its current usage.

The decision of what strategy to select will depend on why you need to learn the information, the type of information that is being learned, the length of the retention interval, and individual differences with regard to one’s own memory.

Like the memory strategies presented in the last chapter, they all require that you attend to the information and that you engage in an active process. You need to monitor your own learning and remembering and you need to be aware of the reason for learning and the length of the retention interval. Comprehension strategies force the learner to focus on the structure and relationships among the concepts. The learner needs to transform the material into manageable chunks either by summarizing and paraphrasing the information in one’s own words or making a graphic representation that displays the main points. Organization and monitoring are two key concepts.

This passage relies on how the term “normal” is defined. As it is being used, normal means the average. This sort of definition implies that the most average individuals are normal. Because we are all atypical in some ways, none of us would qualify as normal using this definition. If “normal” was defined as “mentally healthy,” then this term would have to be defined in some operational way (i.e., how could I know if someone is mentally healthy). Homosexuals would then be compared with the “markers” for “mentally healthy” people to determine if they fit into this definition of “normal.” The important questions are what the term “normal” should mean and who should decide on its definition.

Mr. Romney is implying that male and female workers have different needs and should thus be treated differently. His statement suggests that women are disproportionately responsible for household duties, such as preparing meals. This leads to the inference that men actually work more at the workplace because they are not responsible for such duties. This statement uses framing because it sets up the assumption that women are indeed more responsible for meal preparation than men are, and it encourage the listener to see men and women as having different household responsibilities, different needs as workers, and different value to employers.

The term “specialist” was preferred when it conferred additional money and prestige on gynecologists. They changed to “generalists” when it seemed possible that additional salary would be paid to “generalists.” Nothing else changed except the label. How might we decide if one label is more appropriate?

This is a good example of the need for operational definitions. Words like “pornography” are difficult to define operationally, but without such definitions how can anyone know if she or he is guilty of breaking pornography laws?

How would you define “anti-Semitic”? Wouldn’t the denial of basic employment rights and the forced deportation of Jews be a prime example of this sort of prejudice?

The word “plantations” has a negative connotation because they were large mansions that kept many slaves. Many people object to glorifying the former slave owners, so a simple solution was just to change what they were called. Of course, only the label changed. They are the tourist attractions that they always were.

This is a good example of the way context affects comparative judgments. Relative to the “gorgeous” television stars, “real” people seemed less attractive than they seemed relative to other “real” people. Context has a strong affect on how we make judgments, often without our conscious awareness of its effects.

“Risk adverse” refers to the tendency to prefer a potential gain over a potential loss even when the probabilities and expected values are the same. An advertisement based on this principle would emphasize that you worked hard for something and don’t want to risk losing it. By contrast, a comparison advertisement would emphasize the potential gain. Lottery advertisements usually employ this strategy.

Failure to accept the logical task involves evaluating the premises and injecting one’s own beliefs into the problem instead of deriving the logical conclusion solely on the basis of the information presented. Belief bias occurs when an individual’s beliefs interfere with his or her selection of the logical conclusion. The two are related in the sense that because one is biased by one’s beliefs (i.e., there is a preference for an outcome that favors one’s beliefs), one may not recognize the logical conclusion because it disagrees with or opposes one’s beliefs.

As the question implies, they are not the same. People add their own beliefs and knowledge to a problem and do not work using only the information that is given. This point is considered in more detail in the next chapter.

In the legal process, there are laws that govern certain facts. To determine if a law applies, it is necessary to begin with the information that is “given” and use it to determine if a specific conclusion would logically follow from it.

In inductive reasoning, people begin with observations and form beliefs about relationships or “laws.” This is sometimes called reasoning “up” from the data. In deductive reasoning, people begin with the relationships or laws and then determine what observations must be valid. This is sometimes called reasoning “down” to the observations.

The second part of this question is optional and asks for examples from Sherlock Holmes. These will vary.

The rules for linear orderings should be listed here: keep terms congruent, make the second term in the first premise the first term in the second premise, avoid negations, compare adjacent terms, draw a spatial linear array.

Truth refers to objective reality. It is not affected by the premises. A conclusion is valid if it must be true when the premises are true. A conclusion can be valid and false, for example, when it follows from false premises. It can also be invalid and true. This occurs when an objectively true conclusion does not “follow from” the premises. A premise can be both true and valid or neither true nor valid.

An “if, then” statement has an antecedent and a consequent. Common errors occur when the antecedent is denied or the consequent is affirmed.

In general, negation makes reasoning more difficult, probably by increasing the load on working memory.

A syllogism usually consists of two premises and a conclusion. The reasoning task is to determine if the conclusion must be true when the premises are true.

Circle diagrams are a spatial strategy for checking the validity of conclusions in categorical syllogisms. The circles represent category membership. They are useful forms of representing information.

The “middle term” is the term that is not mentioned in the conclusion in a three-term syllogism (the kind used here). A term is distributed if it is modified by either universal quantifier—all or none.

The rules of syllogisms are a set of seven rules that are used to determine whether a conclusion is valid when reasoning with quantifiers. If the syllogism does not violate any of the rules, then the conclusion is valid.

According to the rules of logic, the topic of a syllogism should not affect how we reason, but in reality it does. We reason better with concrete terms (e.g., with the term “dogs” than a nonsense term like “kuhs”), and we differ in what we are willing to accept as valid depending on what we believe to be true.

In logic, a term is valid if it must always be true given the premises. Probability allows for the fact that a conclusion could be more or less likely to be true given the premises. In real-life reasoning, these two often get confused.

The confirmation bias is the predilection to seek information that supports or confirms the hypothesis that we believe to be true. In the four-card selection task, it is seen in the pervasive selection of those cards that would support the hypothesis that the subject is testing. In order to solve this problem correctly, the problem solver must select a card that would disprove the hypothesis. For example, the hypothesis concerns vowels and even numbers, but a card with an odd number must be turned over to see if it falsifies the rule.

Notice the careful pattern.
Two at a time:
1 + 2, 1 + 3, 1 + 4, 1 + 5
2 + 3, 2 + 4, 2 + 5
3 + 4, 3 + 5
4 + 5
Three at a time:
1 + 2 + 3, 1 + 2 + 4, 1 + 2 + 5, 1 + 3 + 4, 1 + 3 + 5, 1 + 4 + 5
2 + 3 + 4, 2 + 3 + 5, 2 + 4 + 5,
3 + 4 + 5
Four at a time:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4, 1 + 2 + 3 + 5, 1 + 3 + 4 + 5
2 + 3 + 4 + 5
Five at a time:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5

“No A are B” is the same as saying “no B are A.” Thus, B is modified by the universal term “no” in this premise. “All A are B” includes the possibility that there are some B that are not A, so it does not have a universal term modifying it and B is not distributed.

Harmon calls reasoning a “change in view” because the giving of reasons is an objective way of changing how people think about a topic.

In a convergent structure, all of the reasons point to the same conclusion and help to support it. In a chained structure, the reasons are strung out, so that one reason is the support of another reason. If a weak reason is added to convergent structure, the effect is to increase support, but a weak reason can weaken a chained structure because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

In deciding if a premise is acceptable, we use common standards such as personal and shared knowledge or expert opinion. If an argument is extremely important, then the reader will want to have greater certainty about the acceptability of the premise than if it is less important. Monitoring one’s thinking to decide whether the topic is important and whether additional information is needed is part of developing the disposition of critical thinking.

A list is given in the text for assessing credibility. Is the “expert” a recognized authority with appropriate training or experience? Does the expert have firsthand knowledge of the specific topic? Is there any reason to believe that there may be a preexisting bias that would influence what the expert would say or believe? Were the appropriate methods used by the expert?

The question of relatedness is one of whether the premise adds support to or takes support away from the conclusion. A premise is related to a conclusion when knowledge of the premise changes how you think about the conclusion.

A sound argument has premises that are acceptable, relevant, and consistent. In determining whether an argument is sound, missing components also have to be considered and qualifiers, counterarguments, and assumptions have to be examined. When all of these components have been considered, then the relative strength of support for the conclusion can be assessed.

In advertisements and political rhetoric, the most likely way to mislead the public is by omitting important information. It is more difficult to think about information that is not being presented than it is to scrutinize information that may be wrong or suspicious. This is why it is important to think about what might be missing that would have an important bearing on the argument that is being presented.

Students could answer this question in many ways, depending on how they reason about the various fallacies. The most obvious fallacies in which the reasons are unrelated to the conclusion are appeals to pity (the reason for the pity is irrelevant); appeals to pride or snobbery (the reason for the conclusion is that the reader is smart, rich, beautiful, etc.); circular reasoning (the reason is a restatement of the conclusion—students may not consider this as “unrelated”); irrelevant reasons; knowing the unknowable (the absence of evidence); put downs (belittling the reader is not a reason for a conclusion); and false charge of fallacy. A sound argument could be made for some other fallacies as well, so I would probe students’ thinking if they selected other fallacies.

When making a reasoned judgment, a conclusion is supported by reasons. In an opinion, the conclusion is a simple preference or statement for which no reasons are given.

An example in which an opinion serves as the premise for an argument:

• I think that standardized intelligence tests should be used to determine college admissions. (Opinion—no reasons given)
• Standardized intelligence tests should be given to all high school seniors who want to attend college because these tests are good ways to determine college admissions. (Reason is given for the conclusion that all seniors should be given intelligence tests)

A list of techniques for changing beliefs is presented in the text. It is important to appear credible and fair. Anticipate counterarguments so that you can raise them and then weaken them. Other techniques, like public commitment, are important because people do not want to appear inconsistent or unable to keep a pledge. It is important to be direct in what you want people to conclude so that there are no mistakes as to how you want them to think. Repetition of the conclusion, along with several reasons, and a relatively simple argument will also help. Of course, some people use the fallacies that are presented in this chapter, which is why it is so important to know how to think critically.

Baron (1993) used the term “actively open-minded” to describe people who can change a cherished belief if given good reasons to do so. Actively and honestly processing information that is counter to prior beliefs is very difficult, namely because information that confirms our beliefs seems more positive to us and validates the accuracy of our judgments (confirmation bias). Some people can remain open-minded enough to evaluate an argument objectively, independent of their prior beliefs. It is not impossible to be fair-minded, but it is difficult.

Shermer (1997) describes five strategies used by so-called “Holocaust Deniers” (people who deny the fact of the holocaust in Europe during World War II). These can be seen as strategies used by biased thinkers, or people who have great difficulty accepting very strong evidence that is contrary to cherished beliefs. The thinking of these individuals appears to be strongly dominated by the confirmation bias, or a pervasive preference for information that confirms what one already believes to be true. The five strategies are:

1. They concentrate on any weakness in their opponent’s argument instead of providing strong evidence to support their own argument.
2. They exploit errors in the opposing argument (by focusing on a mistake made by someone who supports an opposing view, they can suggest that all or most of the evidence is wrong).
3. They take quotes out of context, so that the meaning is altered.
4. They recast honest debates among scholars to make them seem as though the honest scholars disagree about fundamental issues, when in fact they may disagree only about tertiary issues.
5. They focus on what is not known rather than what is known.

As you write or speak, use the same guidelines for evaluating arguments. The conclusion needs to be supported by the premises and all of the other components—assumptions, qualifiers, counterarguments, and missing components need to be considered.

When evaluating information from a website, look for:

• The authority: Who is sponsoring the site? What are the authors’ qualifications?
• Accuracy: Where did the information come from? Are the data clearly labeled?
• Objectivity: Is the site a public service or is it just a fancy “sales-pitch?”
• Currency: When was the site last revised? Is the information still relevant?
• Coverage: Is the information complete?

It is always important for people to critically analyze information they are presented with across all media (television, print, websites, and so on). It is particularly important to evaluate information presented on websites because the origin and purpose of the site may be unclear (i.e., television commercials are clearly designed to persuade through advertising; websites may be advertisements that are “disguised” as science or experts’ findings).

Much of the information that we receive about the world is visual. The association between a person or concept and a repulsive image can be a powerful supplement to a verbal message. Images are subject to less forgetting and can be very persuasive. Examples included the images of starving children that were shown on television to persuade Americans to send troops to poor regions of the world and the body of an American soldier that was being dragged through the streets to convince Americans that we should pull troops out of another country.

We all function like intuitive scientists because we need to understand, predict, and control the variables in our lives. In order to do this, we make observations, formulate hypotheses, and then test our hypotheses. Many of the formal rules of research apply in our everyday attempts to make sense out of life’s events.

In inductive reasoning, we make observations about events and then use these observations to formulate beliefs. In deductive reasoning, we begin with hypotheses or rules about the world and then use these rules to predict events. Although these seem like distinct processes, in fact we use them cyclically by making observations, formulating hypotheses, and then predicting events and revising hypotheses. Our beliefs determine the events that we observe, and our observations are used to shape beliefs.

Operational definitions are critical if we are to understand and communicate with each other. There needs to be some way of “recognizing” a term or principle when we encounter it. I need to know what a “rabid feminist” or “right-wing conservative” is or I cannot understand what people mean when they use these terms.

Random assignment of participants to groups ensures that the motivational and other individual differences in people show up in equivalent proportions in each group (i.e., the random assignment process would result in an equal number of smart, educated, uneducated, rich, and poor people in the experimental and control groups). If random assignment is used and variables are strictly controlled, then the only difference between the two groups is the presence or absence of the independent variable; thus, any difference between the two groups on the measured (dependent) variable would suggest a causal influence of the independent variable. Random assignment allows control of a great many variables (as does the laboratory setting), because the groups are considered to be essentially the same before introduction of the independent variable.

A knowledge test of a passage that participants are required to read; number of facts recognized

Multiple judges’ ratings from photographs or unobtrusive observation

Standard tests of physical fitness (resting heart rate, percent body fat); actual performance of physically demanding tasks

Rankings of popularity by classmates; number of party invitations received in one year

Liking and loving scales; interest in seeking other relationships; commitment or future plans

Number of times the student speaks or answers/asks a question; attendance

Speed and accuracy of document processing, editing, or entry

There are many potential errors that can occur when generalizing from a sample to a population. The sample can be too small to provide a good estimate of the population or it can be different from the population in systematic ways so that it does not represent the population. For example, in the Literary Digest sample, the sample consisted of wealthy individuals who read a great deal. This group was not representative of the population of all voters in America and their responses were different from the population of all voting adults.

IV = worker training, DV = work accidents

IV = swimming lessons, DV = Mr. Toad’s lung capacity

IV = tutoring, DV = grades in English

IV = exercise, DV = concentrating while studying

IV = prayer, DV = illness rates

IV = hypnosis, DV = smoking

IV = watching Sesame Street, DV = vocabulary development

The number of participants included a research sample is called the sample size. Scientists often use large numbers of participants because the larger the sample size, the more confident they can be in generalizing the findings to the population. This principle is called the “law of large numbers.” If large numbers of participants cannot be used, then scientists need to be more cautious or conservative in interpreting their research results. The larger the number of people in the sample, the more likely it is that variability (i.e., the range of individual differences in the outcome variable) within the sample is reflective of that in the population. Smaller samples are not likely to represent variability as it occurs in the population simply because a sufficient range of outcomes is not being considered. Variability is very important in examining any human phenomenon, and to be captured samples must be large.

In some experimental settings, it is possible to isolate and control the variables you are interested in. Other variables are not amenable to manipulation because it would be impossible or unethical to do so (i.e., it is not ethical to subject children to the independent variable of neglect; it is impossible to randomly assign people to cancer and no cancer groups). Random assignment of participants to groups ensures that the motivational and other individual differences in people show up in equivalent proportions in each group (i.e., the random assignment process would result in an equal number of smart, educated, uneducated, rich, and poor people in the experimental and control groups). If random assignment is used and variables are strictly controlled, then the only difference between the two groups is the presence or absence of the independent variable; thus, any difference between the two groups on the measured (dependent) variable would suggest a causal influence of the independent variable. It is difficult to compare preexisting groups of people (e.g., in a quasi-experiment) because the groups may be different on a variety of dimensions, and thus it is difficult to isolate the effects of the independent (or grouping) variable of interest.

Confounding occurs when subjects or treatments vary in more than one way. For example, if I wanted to know about spelling ability in adolescents, I could not compare a group of 11-year-old girls with a group of 14-year-old boys because both age and sex are confounded. I wouldn’t be able to tell if differences in spelling ability were due to sex or age of the subjects.

Variability denotes the fact that all people are not the same. Because people are variable in their response different lifestyle behaviors, some people will suffer from such excessive behaviors as daily drinking and smoking, while others will not. One instance may be peculiar in its outcomes and is not reflective of the “typical” response or the range of outcomes that are possible.

People’s willingness to believe that results obtained from a small sample can be generalized to the entire population is called the “law of small numbers.” We of course should be more confident when predicting from large samples than small samples. Research by Quattrone and Jones (1980) indicated that if one member of a group made a particular decision, college students believed that other members of that group would make the same decision. This effect was especially strong when the students were observing the decisions of outgroup members (e.g., students from another college). Thus, it is easy to see how a belief in the law of small numbers can maintain prejudices and stereotypes. We tend to believe that the actions of a single group member are indicative of the actions of the entire group (e.g., that criminal is African American; all African Americans are criminals). If there is no variability in a particular behavior (e.g., all people agree that murder is wrong), then there is no need to assess many people, because one case is reflective of the entire group (these constructs are virtually nonexistent or not very important).

Both professionals and nonprofessionals place great confidence in their conclusions about most life events, even when their confidence is objectively unwarranted. Overconfidence in judgments is called illusory validity. Oskamp (1965) found that as clinicians were given more information about patients, they became more confident in the judgments they made about patients. What is interesting about this result is they were not more accurate in judgment, only more confident that they were right. One reason why people place confidence in fallible judgments is the confirmation bias. This may increase illusory validity in multiple ways, including by increasing search for and utilization of information that confirms our beliefs (thereby enhancing the perceived validity of our beliefs) and by increasing accessibility of confirming instances (i.e., selective memory is likely to remember instances where beliefs or predictions were confirmed). In other words, we remember the “hits” and forget the “misses.” Another reason why we fail to utilize disconfirming evidence is that it is often not readily available. For example, personnel managers do not have information about the job applicants they do not hire (thus, they don’t know if those people would have been better workers than the people that were hired). Similarly, we don’t know much about the person we chose not to date, or the course we didn’t take, or the house we didn’t buy. Thus, on the basis of partial information, we may conclude that our judgments are better than they actually are.

In convergent validity, there are multiple sources of evidence that support a single conclusion, so even if one source is weak, the other evidence will help us maintain confidence in the conclusion. This is directly analogous to convergent structures in analyzing arguments. When analyzing arguments, the convergence is created by multiple reasons; when reviewing evidence, the convergence is created by multiple types of evidence that support the same conclusion.

When we believe that two variables are related, we tend to notice and remember the times when they occurred together. Selective attention and memory lead to the belief that we are seeing what we believe to be true.

Experimenter expectations can affect research results in subtle ways that even the research does not realize. Slight differences in encouragement or other types of feedback can affect subject motivation or effort. Similarly, subjects’ beliefs also affect how they respond. With a double-blind procedure, neither the experimenter nor the subject knows who is in the experimental (treatment) group or the control group, so expectations cannot affect outcomes.

There are many possible answers because students have to come up with their own examples. Here are some possibilities:

Positively correlated:

• Weight and height
• Years of education and income
• Shoe size and hand size

Negatively correlated:

• Amount of alcohol consumed and grade point average
• Number of hours of exercise per day and waist size
• Amount of television watched and number of books read

Uncorrelated:

• Shoe size and intelligence
• Number of heads a person has and IQ
• Amount of money in wallet and number of glasses of water consumed

We cannot determine cause from the co-occurrence of two events because many unrelated events occur all the time. The three-stage experimental design is needed because it allows the experimenter to control for unrelated variables like changes that occur over time but are unrelated to the variable of interest.

This relationship can be interpreted in two main ways: (1) Education for women increases the likelihood of divorce; and (2) divorce increases the likelihood of education for women. Both can be interpreted: (1) As women become more educated and liberal, they are less likely to follow traditional roles and more likely to see divorce as an appropriate alternative (this is the stance taken by the media report); (2) as women divorce, they often reenter school so that they can become more self-supporting or completely financially independent. An important third variable is more liberal social standards concerning women’s education and divorce over time.

There are many reasons why we believe in the validity of our own conclusions. One reason is that we remember our correct beliefs better and more vividly than the times that we were wrong. We also may believe that we had maintained a position that later was shown to be correct, when in fact, we had believed a position that was not correct. People also do not seek disconfirming evidence, often because it is not available. We usually have little or no information about a choice that we did not make, so we tend to believe that we chose correctly. Numerous experimental and everyday examples show that most people have little knowledge of the fallibility of their own judgments and believe that they are usually correct.

Prospective research is preferable to retrospective research because it is not subject to all of the biases of memory, including knowledge after the fact that changes our memory of what occurred before the facts were known.

There are two different ways that we can make errors in any hypothesis-testing situation. These two errors are not equally “bad.” In the example given in text (deciding whether a friend is cheating on a test), it is far worse to decide that your friend is cheating when he is not (especially if you accuse him of cheating or even worse, report him to the professor) than it is to decide that he is not cheating when he is. Thus, a critical thinker should want stronger evidence to decide that he is cheating than he or she would want to decide that he is not cheating. As another example, the jury system is biased toward one type of error: freeing a guilty person. This error is not as “bad” as convicting an innocent person (and taking away their freedom and liberty). In other words, the relative “badness” of different errors needs to be considered when testing hypotheses.

Al Hibbs was able to “beat the house” by taking advantage of the fact that all manufactured machinery has slight imperfections. In a roulette wheel, some of the pockets (slots) will have slightly higher walls or uneven dips. By observing which numbers the ball ended in most often after many spins, he was able to identify these imperfections in one particular wheel. He then consistently bet on these numbers. Unfortunately, we can’t use this technique to get rich because the components of the wheels are now reassembled frequently and, although they still contain slight imperfections, these imperfections will vary from wheel to wheel and cannot be tracked.

If students have already read the chapter on deductive reasoning, they will recognize that these are the same tree diagrams that were used to determine validity with “if, then” statements. A tree diagram is a way of organizing the information in a problem. It shows all possible outcomes and the probability of each. It is a graphic way of organizing information so that it can be understood and easily used.

The reason that the probability is so high is that there are many possible birthday combinations with 40 different people. The probability would be much lower if a specific day were selected, say May 31, and then we asked the probability that 2 people share this birthday, but with 365 days, the probability increases. Similarly, the probability would be much lower if we asked the probability that someone else in this randomly selected group had the same birthday as Lourdes, a person selected from this group. The probability is high when the birthday coincidence can be any two people with the same birthday on any day of the year.

Gambler’s fallacy is the belief that a number (or other random event) will be more likely to occur if it has not occurred recently than if it had occurred recently. It is a fallacious belief because random events are equally likely on any trial regardless of whether they recently occurred.

The rest of this question will vary because students are asked to question their friends about this belief. A belief in “streaks” is the flip side because it is the belief that if an event has occurred recently it is now more likely to occur.

In judging the frequency of lethal events, very vivid events are recalled as being more likely than they actually are. It seems that we assess likelihood by “thinking about” (i.e., recalling) events, and vivid events are recalled more easily than those that are less vivid. This is why we tend to overestimate the likelihood of plane crashes and terrorism and underestimate the likelihood of diabetes and car accidents.

A disease that is very rare, by definition, has a low base rate. It will be difficult to devise a test to detect it because the probability of not having the disease is very high and this will inflate the probability of a false positive—that is, having a test that indicates that someone has the disease when he really doesn’t.

I would predict that this student would get a high grade on the midterm, but one that probably is closer to the class average than the first grade. This is the principle of regression to the mean.

This is an example of regression to the mean. Because exceptionally good performance was usually followed by a more average performance and exceptionally poor performance was also usually followed by a more average performance, the flight instructors believed that praise caused poorer performance and criticism caused better performance. Some students will realize that this false belief by the flight instructors is an example of false cause, a topic that was covered in the chapter on analyzing arguments and in the chapter on hypothesis testing.

Answers will vary here because students will provide their own examples.

This problem involves explaining the conjunction fallacy examples to friends. It is hoped that exercises like this one will get students to discuss what they are learning with others and to strengthen their learning by having them teach key concepts to friends and family.

Dice games, roulette, wheels of fortune, keno, and slot machines are all based purely on chance. Card games require strategy and skill, but are still strongly affected by chance events. If one is skilled and experienced at cards, this may increase one’s chances of winning, although chance would still be operating.

All insurance policies are a kind of a gamble, and like roulette and other games, the expected value is negative for the consumer. Nevertheless, we buy all sorts of insurance because it is protection against a major loss. For example, auto insurance rates are adjusted so that we pay more for the policy than we expect to get back, on average. But, if we are involved in a costly car accident, the cost for medical care and property damage could be huge, and protection against such huge costs is the reason we purchase insurance. Consider insurance for small appliances like toasters, radios, and cameras. The cost of the policy is calculated so that the company that is selling the insurance will, on average, make money. This means that the expected value for the consumer is negative. In this case, the protection we are purchasing is the cost of a broken appliance—a relatively small sum of money. This is why consumer magazines suggest that we never purchase insurance for small appliances. On average, we can expect to lose money on each policy purchased. It would be much smarter to the take the money that we would have spent on the policy and invest it so that it continues to earn additional money. Of course, sometimes, the appliance will break down and need to be replaced. But, if you understand the concept of expected values, you will feel much better about paying for a new one or for the repair with all of the money that you have saved by not purchasing insurance for small items.

Casino owners and managers will always display such signs because they understand the gambler’s fallacy—the belief that chance processes are self-correcting, so that if an event has not occurred in a while, it is now more likely to occur. Players do pay attention to these signs, and the outcomes of previous spins often influence their bets (e.g., “10 came up three times in a row, it’s coming up again” or “10 hasn’t hit in a while; it’s going to come up soon”).

Not independent, because the probability of drawing each card increases as cards are removed from the deck.

Independent, because the outcome of one has no effect on the outcome of another.

Independent, because the outcome of one has no effect on the outcome of another.

Not independent, because the probability of wrecking one’s car increases as the amount of alcohol consumed increases.

Not independent, but strongly related to each other, with more motivated students earning higher grades.

Not independent, even if multiple decks are used, again because the probability of a particular card being dealt to each player increases as each card is dealt out of the deck (or the “shoe” containing multiple decks).

These events are not independent. If the dealer is showing a 6, standard gambling rules indicate that a player should assume that the dealer is holding (not showing) a card with a value of 10. If the last player at the table took a “hit” (asked for another card from the dealer), and that card was a 10 card, the dealer’s likelihood of “busting” (exceeding 21) may be affected (i.e., if the last player had stayed, the dealer would have received the 10).

Decision making, solving problems, and thinking creatively are similar cognitive processes. There is a great deal of overlap in the way they are conceptualized by researchers. Sometimes the term “decision making” is used when the task requires the decision-maker to select the best alternative from among several possibilities. In contrast, the term “problem solving” is often used when the task requires the problem-solver to generate alternatives (rather than choose one). If is a fairly arbitrary distinction, and in the real world it is often difficult to decide if the task requires the generation or the selection of alternatives. The general framework that is present in most conceptualizations of decision making includes several stages. The first stage is the identification or realization that a decision is needed. This is followed by the generation of two or more alternatives that would satisfy a goal or desired outcome that is implied by the decision (a.k.a., the production stage). The third stage is sometimes called the judgment or evaluation stage, where the decision-maker evaluates the pros and cons of each alternative in order to select the “best” alternative (the alternative that seems most likely to lead to the desired outcome).

Several examples of the beneficial use of worksheets are provided in the text. The study in which college students used worksheets for personal decisions about alcohol and other drug use is one example. Another example is the job decisions made by telephone operators when they were interviewing for that job.

Decisions involve uncertainty mainly because we cannot know in advance the consequences of our actions. Much of the difficulty when making decisions lies in judging which alternative is most likely to turn out best. In this way, decisions necessarily involve guesses and predictions about future events. Decisions also involve uncertainty because they usually have to be made with missing information. The consideration of what is “best” requires the evaluation of alternatives in terms of which will turn out “best” both in the immediate and long-term future, taking into consideration information that is missing. A good way to reduce uncertainty is to collect as much information as possible about the decision and about each alternative. Reducing uncertainty by collecting more information (and generating more decision alternatives as a result) may increase one’s ability to make the “best” decision.

A poignant example of failure to assess risks adequately can be found in an analysis of the U.S.’s military actions just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Several warnings from Washington that a Japanese attack in the Southwest was possible had been received. The admiral in charge downplayed the probability of an attack on Pearl Harbor because he believed that other naval sites were more likely targets. Almost one hour before the attack, two army privates spotted on a radar screen large numbers of unidentified aircraft flying toward Pearl Harbor. Realizing that these could be Japanese bombers, they reported the presence of the unidentified aircraft to the Army’s radar center. Consider the situation that the officer on duty at the radar center found himself in. The U.S. was not at war with Japan. He had never received the recent warning that a Japanese attack was imminent. He had to decide whether the unidentified objects on the radar screen belonged to the U.S. or to Japan. There were costs and risks associated with either choice. If he had erroneously decided that they were Japanese planes, he would have been responsible for recalling personal “leaves” for large numbers of service people and creating havoc and panic on the base. There were also large financial costs involved in preparing for anti-aircraft maneuvers. Because he assessed the probability of a Japanese attack to be low, he told the two privates to forget about the objects on the radar. He decided that they were probably U.S. aircraft that were expected to arrive that day. With the unfortunate benefit of hindsight, it is clear that he failed to assess adequately the risks associated with each decision. The result was the worst naval disaster in U.S. history (over 2,000 people were killed). Even though he believed that an attack was unlikely (wishful thinking), he should have realized that the risks were too great to justify his decision (i.e., the costs of one error far outweighed the costs of the other error). Decisions made under extreme risks need careful scrutiny and not an offhand dismissal.

A decision should be judged to be good or bad before the outcome is known, not after the fact. Many historical decisions are criticized because of hindsight bias—the ability to identify causal factors and “warning signs” of a tragic event in looking back on the event. The problem is that before an event occurs, “warning signs” may not be meaningful or telling, and causal factors are not as clear as they are in hindsight. There is an important distinction between how good a decision is when it is being made and its outcome. Higher-quality decisions when they are made are not hasty; they involve generation of multiple decision alternatives, careful consideration of each alternative, and collecting as much information as possible. Subjective utility refers to the value of a particular choice to an individual. It is a personal assessment about a choice—it is subjective. If a person highly desires making a quick decision, or making a decision that fits with that of other in-group members, then this subjective utility will outweigh the person’s motivation toward making a “good” decision.

The tendency to seek information that agrees with the ideas we have is called “confirmation bias.” Confirmation bias is a theme throughout the text because of its pervasive, even unconscious influence on thinking and decision making. Research by Smedslund (1963) and Berger (1995) illustrates confirmation bias among trained nurses and doctors making diagnostic decisions about relationships between symptoms and diseases that are commonly required in their profession. Additional research indicates that rocket scientists are also prone to the confirmation bias (Mynatt, Doherty, & Tweney, 1978).

A heuristic is “rule of thumb” or a set of guidelines for thinking about a topic. An algorithm is a set of steps that is followed exactly to get the correct answer. Two heuristics that were described in the text were availability (the use of readily recallable events to judge frequency) and representativeness (in which a “random looking” pattern is judged as more representative of a random process than one that is patterned). These are not necessarily bad ways of making decisions about how frequently events occur, but they can bias decisions because we make the same sort of errors every time we use them. That is, most people overestimate the likelihood of an event that they can easily recall and underestimate the likelihood of an event that they can’t easily recall. Thus, many people are afraid to fly because large plane crashes are highly memorable and available in memory, but they do not wear seat belts in cars because car crashes are less memorable. Because people are much more likely to die or be injured in a car crash than a plane crash, these are the opposite actions from those we should be taking.

Because very vivid, dramatic, salient events are highly memorable, people easily recall them, which may lead to overestimations of the frequency of such events (e.g., a string of homicides that are highly publicized may lead people to believe that the probability of being murdered is much higher than it actually is). When people are asked to estimate the likelihood of certain deaths, information readily available in memory (memories of murders) may appear more frequent than information that cannot be easily recalled (the availability heuristic). Because crime is very vivid and available, with the latest gruesome murder described in detail over and over as the leading story on all the network news channels, people are likely to overestimate death due to homicide. Because deaths from diabetes are not salient—they are not highly publicized at all, but are rather mundane—they are not highly available, and thus appear much less frequent than murders when the availability heuristic is used. Such judgments could become more accurate by obtaining information on actual death rates, or possibly by forcing oneself not to rely on availability.

Heuristics are “rules of thumb” that we use to solve problems. They are mental shortcuts that allow complex judgments of cause and likelihood to be reduced to simpler cognitive operations. Heuristics won’t always provide the correct answer, but they may provide an approximate or a “good enough” answer. Heuristics are helpful when a quick decision is desirable. In contrast, an algorithm is a procedure that will always yield exactly the correct answer if it is followed precisely. In contrast to the use of algorithms, which is generally purposeful, heuristics may be used by a decision maker without the realization that they are being used (thus, overreliance on heuristics may become automatic or unconscious). Heuristics are certainly useful, but when a decision is important or when accuracy is important or essential to a good decision, excessive reliance on heuristics may lead to disastrous consequences for the decision-maker. At the very least, excessive reliance on heuristics may lead one to become an unreasonable, illogical person.

The worksheet procedure begins with the knowledge that a decision needs to be made. The decision is then framed in numerous ways because ways of wording it will lead to different alternatives. Alternatives and considerations are listed. Considerations are assigned a numerical value that indicates the importance of each, and the alternatives are then assigned a numerical value that indicates how well it meets the considerations. These numbers are multiplied and then added for each alternative. Totals for each alternative are then compared to determine which of the alternatives is best when assessed with these criteria.

We want to feel that we act and think consistently. Once an alternative is selected, it is important that we now believe that we selected the best alternative. If not, then our actions and thoughts would not be consistent, which would create a motivating state or dissonance, and we would have to reassess the alternative or the action to bring them into agreement.

In “elimination by aspects,” important aspects of the decision are listed, and those alternatives that are not consistent with the important aspects of the decision are eliminated. For example, being close to school or work is an important aspect in many decisions about where to live. This would eliminate housing choices that are far from school or work. Similarly, cost is almost always an important aspect. Housing choices that are too expensive would also be eliminated. In this way, the number of alternatives is reduced to a manageable number.

When decisions are difficult, it is often because two or more alternatives seem very similar in how attractive they are. In the housing example, one apartment might be close to school but expensive, and another would be farther away but cheaper. When this happens, the decision-maker has to put more time into the decision-making process and expand it. Look for additional alternatives; reassess the weighting given to the considerations; and list additional considerations that were omitted earlier (e.g., Is there a place for your dog at either apartment?).

The failure to seek disconfirming evidence can and does lead to wrong decisions in many settings, including research. A researcher could conclude that a particular drug works, when in fact there is evidence of people recovering who did not take the drug. This is one sort of evidence that disconfirms the hypothesis that a change in health status was due to the drug. If it is ignored or discounted, then a wrong decision will be made.

The worksheet is, as its name implies, a great deal of work. It is useful in those situations when a decision is extremely important. It could take hours to make a worksheet, but selecting a poor job or entering the army when it is not a good choice for you are examples of decisions that can have negative effects for many years. A few hours is a wise investment when the decision is important.

People enter psychotherapy when something in their lives is wrong. The realization that change is needed is the first step in decision making. All of the steps, from recognizing that a decision is needed, to reframing the decision and listing alternatives and considerations are useful in improving interpersonal decisions, as well as other sorts of decisions. The weighing of considerations is an exercise in values clarification because it forces the decision-maker to make multiple assessments about how important various considerations are to that individual. The exploration of options and focusing on ways to take action and improve one’s situation are central in psychotherapy and numerous other situations.

Psychological reactance occurs when we are told that we must select a particular alternative. Because so many people are loathe to give up their right to select options for themselves, often we will select an alternative that we were told we could not have as a way of asserting our rights. Sometimes, this assertion will cause us to select an alternative that is less good than the one we were told to select, so we end up with a poorer alternative to show that we have the right to make our own choices.

When we are given something, the usual feeling is that we now “owe” the benefactor something that is approximately equal in value to whatever it was that was just received. This extends to nontangible gifts as well, such as the gift of kindness from a stranger. We now owe that stranger something of equal value that could include selecting the person we owe from among a set of alternatives. Reciprocity is the underlying principle for many sales gimmicks, such as giving flowers to strangers in the airport so that they then owe your charity a donation, or the giving of samples in a supermarket, or key chains as part of a political campaign, where you theoretically owe the candidate your vote.

Hindsight is detrimental because it uses information that could only be known after a decision is made to judge the quality of a decision. It is not a useful process because we cannot learn anything from it that would be helpful in the future when another decision has to be made without prior knowledge of its outcome. Sometimes, given the information that is available at the time of the decision, a good decision will have a detrimental outcome. There are events that could not have been predicted when the decision is made and these events could cause the bad outcome.

When making decisions that involve potential risk, one of the most important considerations is the extent of the risk. Are you deciding about the risk of thermonuclear war or going out without an umbrella when there is an unknown chance of rain? In general, we need to pay careful attention to this factor because of the potentially devastating consequences.

In one study of the effect of mood on decision making that was described in the text, interviewers were given either good news or bad news prior to interviewing a candidate for a job. When the interviewers received the good news, they rated the candidates for the job as more likely to be hired than when they received the bad news.

This exercise is most appropriate for those students constructing a decision worksheet. Overall assessment and dimensional comparison are strategies for calculating a decision after generating and evaluating alternatives, including calculation and assignment of importance weights to various considerations (outcomes) and alternative features. An overall assessment of the various weights is obtained by determining how well each alternative satisfies the considerations taken as a whole or overall. This is calculated by multiplying the weight previously assigned for each consideration by the value assigned to how well an alternative satisfies that consideration. This is done sequentially for all considerations, resulting in a summary score. In the example in the text, Evan, in choosing a career, has rated his desire to help society a 3, and the department store buyer alternative has a 0 on this consideration. The consideration of income has been rated a 4, and the department store buyer alternative has a +1 on income. This calculation is repeated for each consideration, for each alternative. Alternatives are then compared in terms of their summary score. Dimensional comparison involves examining each consideration to find which alternative has the highest score (i.e., each alternative is compared in terms of how well it satisfies each consideration). In Evan’s case, the inner city school teacher alternative has the highest rating on the “help society” dimension. This alternative would therefore win the top place for this consideration (it would win this consideration). Whichever alternative has the greatest weight for each consideration gets a “win” point; the alternative that wins the most dimensions is the “best” decision. Using overall assessment or dimensional comparison may result in different “best” choices. The overall assessment involves a greater distinction between the considerations/dimensions, in that each consideration is given a desirability weight as is each alternative. In the dimensional comparison method, each consideration is essentially considered equal, with how well each alternative fulfills each consideration being most important.

The effect of mood on memory is discussed in several places throughout the text. In this chapter, a study is described that found that people who watch violent television shows believe that they are more likely to be victims of violent crime than those who don’t. This judgment is based on the availability heuristic. Because frequent viewers of violent crime can easily recall examples of crime, they believe that such crimes are more common than those who cannot easily recall examples of violent crime.

The “2/3 Ideal Rule” was suggested by Carkhuff (1973). It requires the decision maker to calculate an overall assessment total for a perfect or ideal alternative. If an ideal alternative were added to Evan’s worksheet (the example in text), it would rate a +2 (the highest evaluative weight allowed) on each consideration since it would maximally favorable to each consideration. A total overall score for an ideal alternative can be calculated by adding all of the consideration weights and multiplying the total by 2 (the weight for each consideration for the ideal alternative). The reasoning behind the 2/3 Ideal Rule is that a best alternative may not be good enough if it fails to reach at least two-thirds of an ideal solution. Thus a minimally acceptable alternative must equal two-thirds of the total score for the ideal solution. The 2/3 Ideal Rule may be used in complex or more simple decisions. It may be used to eliminate alternatives that aren’t good enough in using a decision worksheet for a complex decision. The 2/3 Ideal Rule may also be used in making satisficing (or “good enough”) judgments in situations in which reaching a minimally acceptable decision quickly is the goal.

All problems have an initial or start state, a goal state, and solution paths in the problem space.

The four stages are preparation or familiarization, production, judgment or evaluation, and sometimes, incubation. Although this stage approach is not universally accepted, it can help students understand the qualitatively different aspects of what people do when they are working on problems.

A well-defined problem has a single solution that most people can agree on. Finding the answer to a problem in geometry is an example of a well-defined problem. An ill-defined problem could have many different sorts of solutions and many people will disagree about what constitutes a good solution. “What can we do to eliminate racism?” is an example of an ill-defined problem.

External forms of representation help in the problem-solving process in many ways. They reduce the demands on working memory by serving as an external memory aid. They can make relationships more salient by providing a picture of the problem. They can also suggest possible solutions by allowing the problem-solver to physically manipulate parts of the problem.

Several different problem representations are presented. Here are some possible answers:

Hierarchical trees: useful when the information is organized into subclasses like biological classification systems
Matrices: best when information is organized into multiple categories
Models: good strategies when the problem involves visualization of multiple stimuli, such as arranging furniture in a room
Diagrams: good for mathematical or spatial problems, such as calculus and geometry
Lists: always useful when there is a great deal of information that needs to be recalled

Persistence may be the most important strategy of all. It is probably part disposition and part strategy. By continuing to work on a problem, trying new ways, and restating it, the problem-solver increases the probability of finding a solution, especially when compared with the probability of finding a solution by giving up.

Means–ends analysis: —useful when there is an orderly progression of steps that lead to a goal
Working backward: best when there are fewer paths leading away from the goal than there are leading away from the initial state
Simplification: use when the problem is complex
Generalization and specialization: good strategy when you are looking for new ways to vary a common object
Random search and trial-and-error: only useful when there are a few possible combinations
Rules: only some problems have obvious rules; use them when available
Hints: good to get feedback about your progress, but it is not usually an option
Split-half method: use with ordered alternatives and no other way to eliminate wrong responses
Brainstorming: when there is an apparent absence of paths to goal, this can help generate some
Contradiction: this can only be used when showing an opposite will eliminate some alternatives
 Restate the problem: almost always useful with ill-defined problems
Analogies and metaphors: difficult to generate, but can be useful if you can see the underlying dimensions of the problem
 Consult an expert: great strategy, but not always possible or feasible

Personal analogy: Put yourself into the problem to see how you would respond. Direct analogy: Use comparisons with similar problems in other domains. Symbolic analogy: Use visual imagery. Fantasy analogy: Think of a solution that may not be physically possible and then determine if it can be adapted.

Functional fixedness: This is like moving along the same incorrect solution path without being able to get off this path to try another one. Worldview constraints: This is like wearing blinders that only allow the problem-solver to see some of the possible solution paths or some of the possible goal states. Mechanization: The repeated use of the same path that may lead to the goal, but it may take the long route.

A good aspect of mechanization is that it allows us to use minimal energy when solving well-known problems. A well-known solution is a great time and energy saver. The bad aspect is that it often blinds us to better ways to solve old problems, so that we don’t continue to improve in our problem-solving abilities.

Mental sets are predispositions to think and respond in a certain way; functional fixedness is a type of mental set in which individuals only consider the usual use (function) of objects. Worldview constraints, or limitations on the way we approach problems placed on us by our social class, nationality, or political views, may be also be considered as a set of mental sets. The main effect of mental sets on problem solving is limitations on the way a problem is considered and limitations on the type of alternatives that are generated to solve the problem. The popular phrase “think outside the box” refers to attempts to not think in the usual ways or in terms of the usual function of objects. Thinking that purposefully attempts to combat mental sets and worldview constraints is more critical, more effortful, more creative, and more reflective of an “actively open-minded” thinker. When problem solvers are not motivated or able to effortfully engage in problem solving, they may be more likely to be limited by mental sets and worldview constraints.

Decision making, solving problems, and thinking creatively are similar cognitive processes. There is a great deal of overlap in the way they are conceptualized by researchers. Sometimes the term “decision making” is used when the task requires the decision-maker to select the best alternative from among several possibilities. In contrast, the term “problem solving” is often used when the task requires the problem-solver to generate alternatives (rather than choose one). If is a fairly arbitrary distinction. The person who is creative is said to regularly solve problems in a creative fashion (Gardner, 1989). Several different psychologists have suggested that creativity is as “simple” as problem solving, except that the problem or the solution is novel and appropriate. According to this view, creative thinking is a multistage process that consists of identifying a problem, deciding what is important about the problem, and arriving at a novel way of solving it.

When coming up with a creative solution, the thinking process does not seem to be very different than it is in other more mundane situations. In addition, the thinking process itself is essentially invisible, so the process cannot be rewarded. As far as psychologists can tell, creative thinking is not qualitatively different from other more “average” thinking. All of our thinking uses information that we already know. Thinking is always creative, in that we take something that is known and transform it to fit a new situation.

Vertical thinking is a more linear process that has been likened to digging the same hole deeper. By contrast, lateral thinking has been called “thinking around a problem” or more like making the hole wider. Lateral thinking is often used as a synonym for creative thinking.

A paradigm is an example that is used as a pattern, usually referring to a “usual way of thinking or responding” (similar to a mental set). “Thinking outside the box” requires stretching and rejecting paradigms (the text provides the example of Callaway Golf).

A prepared mind is one that has the knowledge to recognize a problem when no one else sees it or to recognize a possible solution because the problem has been carefully studied. Creative acts are not mere “serendipity.” They are the result of hard work and knowledge. Without these traits, the creative “accident” would never have been noticed.

When you are fixated, you keep returning to the same type of solution or continue to define the problem in the same way. If you can “forget” this nonproductive view, you can then see the problem or solution in a new way. Taking time away from the problem, incubation, can allow this type of “forgetting” to occur.

Insight is defined as the sudden knowledge of a solution (a “light bulb” moment); incubation is defined as a period of time when an individual is not actively working on a problem that is followed by a successful solution. These two stages in the problem-solving process are often associated with creative solutions. Although these are both “hidden”(or invisible) processes that are seemingly mysterious, it is possible to examine them within the framework of a general cognitive model. When a new idea suddenly comes to someone, it means that a person has successfully traveled his or her personal knowledge network (the interconnected web of information stored in memory) from one place to another—the new idea representing the connection between two previously unconnected nodes. Psychologists call the “thinking about” or the “reminding” process “spread of activation.” For example, when one thinks about a loved one, various images come to mind, including images that may be essentially unrelated to the loved one but that are associated with love (e.g., red roses). When solving a problem, insight may occur as a previously unconnected node is activated through spreading activation. Incubation, allowing time away from the problem, may allow activation to spread through the network on its own, allowing “unconscious” search for a creative solution.

Everyone has the capacity to be creative because it is a trait that exists in various degrees. The most creative individuals seem to be at least average or slightly above average in intelligence, but genius does not seem to be necessary.

There are certain personality factors that are consonant with creativity. Because creativity requires an unusual or novel act, the creative individual must not be swayed by a need for conformity nor be resistant to change. In order to persist in doing or thinking the unusual, the creative person will also need to have enough self-confidence so as not to be dissuaded from a pursuit when others denigrate or deride it. There also needs to be a love or joy with pursuits that are cognitively complex. Perhaps there is some validity to the notion of the “eccentric” artist or scholar. The creative person must be self-motivated so that he or she will persist at a task. Creative people may have to create their own rewards for their actions and find satisfaction in the creative process itself (i.e., they need to be intrinsically motivated). In a study of creative people (Baron, 1958), writers, artists, musicians, and mathematicians were given a battery of tests to determine whether they had any personality traits in common. In general, these highly creative individuals were nonconforming, unconventional, and generally less concerned with “making a good impression.”

Environments to foster creativity are those that encourage it, but do not constantly judge or try to reinforce creative outcomes. It thrives when the motivation is internal, that is, it comes from within the individual out of a sheer enjoyment of the process. It can be encouraged in school and in the workplace by allowing more people the freedom to be creative and by fostering supportive environments that are free of constant supervision.

Finke, Ward, and Smith (1992) have posited a two-phase model of problem solving called “geneplore,” named for the repeated cycles of generation and exploration that are part of every problem-solving process. Creative individuals need to be involved and committed so that they continue the processes long enough to allow a creative solution to emerge. Levine (1994) calls the willingness to work on a problem “intimate engagement,” a term that connotes the close links among motivation, hard work, time on task, and willingness to explore possibilities. Evaluation is also a creative act because the problem solver must be able to recognize when a good solution has been obtained (Doolittle, 1995). Effective evaluation is needed to terminate the process or the problem-solver can be caught in unending loops of exploration and generation.

Some researchers believe that the analogical process is essential to the creative process. This belief comes from the idea that new ideas must come from somewhere and this “somewhere” is a different context or domain of knowledge. Unfortunately, it seems that people are not good at spontaneously noticing analogies, although this characteristic can be developed.

Constant evaluation and judgment are detrimental to the creative process, probably, in part, because they create a constant concern about external evaluations. This additional burden of evaluation takes “space” in working memory. In brainstorming, fantastic and impossible solutions are sometimes given. Impossible solutions would be negatively evaluated, which would lead to fewer of these “wild” responses. Sometimes, the impossible solutions can be modified so that they become possible.

A creative ideas checklist is a list of ways to modify an object. It suggests different categories of changes in the belief that such exercises will encourage flexible thinking. In attribute listing, the individual is required to focus on essential and sensory aspects of the objects that are being modified, such as odor, feel, or color. These different attributes are then combined to create new combinations, such as shiny, wet fabrics.

Plus, minus, interesting is a way of focusing attention on parts of a solution that are good, bad, or neither, but seem to be interesting to the problem-solver. It is a specialized way of directing how people think about a solution. When good aspects are listed, a new solution may emerge that combines what is good in a variety of possible solutions and avoids what is bad.

Having students list words that come to mind is another strategy for directing how they think about a solution. It “reminds” them about related information. In the jargon of information processing it “spreads activation” throughout the knowledge net.

This calls for a creative response, but one that uses the information learned in this chapter. An environment that fosters creativity would build on intrinsic motivation, teach creative skills, encourage risk taking, withhold judgment, and model creativity. There are other possibilities that could be included in this answer.

Answers may vary. The following are basic principles common to creativity training programs:

1. Teach students to think of different ways to accomplish an objective and then how to select the best one.
2. Provide plenty of examples and exercises that model and practice creative skills.
3. Teach students how to ask relevant questions and how to discover when a problem exists.
4. Evaluate the quality of an idea by its consequences.
5.  Reward original and relevant ideas, but be certain the keep the reward secondary to the enjoyment of the creative process. Let students know that their ideas are valuable.
6. Provide unstructured situations. Teach students the value of persistence when they fail.
7. Provide students with a tangible plan for finding solutions. This means that they should be trained in ways that will help them to make relevant information that they have stored in memory accessible and to find ways to bridge areas of knowledge. Plans include recognizing puzzling facts, seeking information, generating possible solutions, changing perspectives, and restating the goal.
8. Refrain from labeling or categorizing problems or solutions too quickly in the problem-solving process because labeling tends to encourage fixation, the opposite sort of set that is needed for flexible thinking.
9. Create the expectation that creative outcomes result from hard work, persistence, a broad knowledge base, and the willingness to continue thinking after a satisfactory solution or answer has been found.
10. Encourage risk-taking and nonconformity, along with a repertoire of responses that are needed for teamwork.

When we make the familiar strange, we see it from a new perspective. This sort of deliberate way of creating a new view should help with new solutions to old problems and reduce fixation and mechanization.