Experiment-4
Functional Fixedness
Aim-: The purpose of this experiment is to investigate the effect of functional
fixedness on the problem-solving ability of the participants.
INTRODUCTION-:
Thinking
According to APA thinking is defined as a “cognitive behaviour in which ideas,
images, mental representations and other such hypothetical elements of thought
are experienced or manipulated.”
Thinking is both a covert and a symbolic process that allows us to form
psychological associations and create models to understand the world.
It is considered a covert process seeing as our thoughts, and the processes
behind their formation are not directly observable. It is understood as symbolic
because thinking operates using mental symbols and representation.
Types of Thinking-:
Perceptual or Concrete Thinking
Perceptual thinking is the simplest form of thinking that primarily utilities
our perception – interpretation of the information absorbed by our senses
– to create thoughts. It is also alternatively known as concrete thinking
because our thoughts reflect our perception of concrete objects, exact
interpretations or the literal meaning of language rather than applying
other concepts or ideas to decipher the same information.
Conceptual or Abstract Thinking
Conceptual or Abstract thinking refers to an individual’s ability to form
thoughts about the information presented to them using complex concepts
and ideas. Abstract thinking is a critical aspect of social interactions and
communication as it allows individuals to study non-verbal cues,
comprehend humour, analogies and other symbolic representations. The
ability to think in this manner usually develops in late childhood and
adolescence. Abstract thinkers also perform well on standardised
intelligence tests.
Abstract thinkers are able to form complex thoughts about theories,
emotions and language. Storytelling is a comprehensive example of
abstract thinking. It makes use of emotion, rhetoric, suspense, and
humour in order to relay information.
Divergent and Convergent Thinking
Divergent and convergent thinking are both considered to be types of
creative thinking which involve finding solutions to problems by
exploring a vast array of ideas and possibilities.
Divergent thinking is a process during which a thinker studies infinite
solutions to a problem, in order to develop an innovative answer that is a
product of a free-flowing, flexible cognitive process that creates
connections between these infinite solutions.
Whereas.,
Convergent thinking is a more focused process that analyses a set of
solutions and selects from them a solution to the proposed problem.
Cognitive Bias
A cognitive bias is a systematic error in thinking that occurs when people
are processing and interpreting information in the world around them and
affects the decisions and judgments that they make.
The human brain is powerful but subject to limitations. Cognitive biases
are often a result of your brain's attempt to simplify information
processing. Biases often work as rules of thumb that help you make sense
of the world and reach decisions with relative speed.
Some of these biases are related to memory. The way you remember an
event may be biased for a number of reasons and that, in turn, can lead to
biased thinking and decision-making.
Other cognitive biases might be related to problems with attention. Since
attention is a limited resource, people have to be selective about what
they pay attention to in the world around them.
Cognitive Bias vs. Logical Fallacy
People sometimes confuse cognitive biases with logical fallacies, but the
two are not the same. A logical fallacy stems from an error in a logical
argument, while a cognitive bias is rooted in thought processing errors
often arising from problems with memory, attention, attribution, and
other mental mistakes.
Functional Fixedness as a Cognitive Bias
Functional fixedness is a type of cognitive bias that involves a tendency
to see objects as only working in a particular way.1 For example, you
might view a thumbtack as something that can only be used to hold paper
to a corkboard. But what other uses might the item have?
How Functional Fixedness Influences Problem-Solving?
Example of functional fixedness at work:
You have two candles, numerous thumbtacks, and a box of
matches. Using only these items, try to figure out how to mount the
candles to a wall. How would you accomplish this? Many people
might immediately start trying to use the thumbtacks to affix the
candles to the wall. Due to functional fixedness, you might think of
only one way to directly use the thumbtacks. There is another
solution, however. Using the matches, melt the bottom part of each
candle and then use the hot wax to stick the candle to the
matchbox. Once the candles are attached to the box, use the
thumbtacks to stick the box to the wall. Functional fixedness is just
one type of mental obstacle that can make problem-solving more
difficult.
Functional fixedness isn't always a bad thing. In many cases, it can
act as a mental shortcut allowing you to quickly and efficiently
determine a practical use for an object.
Functional Fixedness- Classical Experiment-1
(Duncker Experiment)
Duncker (1945), gave participants 3 items, viz. thumbtacks, candle and
match box. They were asked to attach candle to a wall in such a way that
it doesn’t drip on table below.
He observed that most participants struggled by trying to attach candle
directly on wall, some using thumbtacks, while other trying to melt and
fix it. Very few were able to resolve the problem by using thumbtacks on
match box to fix candle on wall
He concluded that most participants and individuals are fixated with the
traditional use of match box to hold matches, and cannot think beyond its
general use to think that it can also hold candles
Review of Literature
Study given German and Defeyter (2000) by used an analogous task, we
show that functional fixedness can be demonstrated in older children (6-
and 7-year-olds); they are significantly slower to use a box as a support
when its containment function has been demonstrated than when it has
not. However, younger children (5-year-olds) are immune to this effect,
showing no advantage when the standard function is not demonstrated.
Moreover, their performance under conditions of preutilization is better
than that of both older groups. These results are interpreted in terms of
children’s developing intuitions about function and the effects of past
experience on problem solving.
present study Camarda et al., (2018) aimed at investigating the neural
bases of the processes involved in overcoming fixation effects during
creative idea generation. Using the AU task adapted for EEG recording,
examined whether participant's ability to provide original ideas was
related to alpha power changes in both the frontal and temporo-parietal
regions. Critically, for half of the presented objects, the classical use of
the object was primed orally, and a picture of the classical use was
presented visually to increase functional fixedness (Fixation Priming
condition). For the other half, only the name of the object and a picture of
the object was provided to the participants (control condition). As
expected, priming the classical use of an object before the generation of
creative alternative uses of the object impeded participants’ performances
in terms of remoteness. In the control condition, while the frontal alpha
synchronization was maintained across all successive time windows in
participants with high remoteness scores, the frontal alpha
synchronization decreased in participants with low remoteness scores. In
the Fixation Priming condition, in which functional fixedness was
maximal, both participants with high and low remoteness scores
maintained frontal alpha synchronization throughout the period preceding
their answer. Whereas participants with high remoteness scores
maintained alpha synchronization in the temporo-parietal regions
throughout the creative idea generation period, participants with low
remoteness scores displayed alpha desynchronization in the same regions
during this period. We speculate that individuals with high remoteness
scores might generate more creative ideas than individuals with low
remoteness scores because they rely more on internal semantic
association and selection processes.
Paper given by German and Barrett (2005) shows problem solving can
be inefficient when the solution requires subjects to generate an atypical
function for an object and the object's typical function has been primed.
Subjects become “fixed” on the design function of the object, and
problem solving suffers relative to control conditions in which the
object's function is not demonstrated. In the current study, such functional
fixedness was demonstrated in a sample of adolescents (mean age of 16
years) among the Shuar of Ecuadorian Amazonia, whose technologically
sparse culture provides limited access to large numbers of artifacts with
highly specialized functions. This result suggests that design function
may universally be the core property of artifact concepts in human
semantic memory.
Hypothesis-:
The adults and older children (6 & 7 yr. olds) will be significantly slower
to use the tack box as a shelf for the candle as compared to the 5 years
old.
The time to reach the solution will be decreased for the older children in
the second condition of the experiment as compared to the first condition
of the experiment.
METHOD
Subject Preliminaries-:
Subject Name Age Gender Education
Qualification
Subject 1 ABC 5 yrs. Female Student
Subject 2 XYZ 7 yrs. Female Student
Subject 3 EFG 8 yrs. Female Student
Materials Required-:
Candle, match sticks and a box of tacks.
Design of the experiment-:
A repeated measure design was used for the experiment. This requires
using the same participants for each condition (Condition 1 and condition
2). This allows the responses from an individual for the condition one to
be directly compared to their response for the second condition. There
were two conditions being compared. The first condition consists of
matchstick, tack pins in the tack box, candle, pins and the board.
In the second condition, there were tack box on its own, tacks were not
put into the tack box, rest were same as in first condition.
Age group of subjects were 5,6,7-year-olds. Three subjects were there for
both the condition.
Variables-:
Independent-: 1) Box provided on its own(condition 2 ) and tack in the
tack box (condition1)
2) Age
Dependent Variable-: Response time taken by the subject to reach to
the condition
Instructions:
“you will be given a candle, a matchbox and a box of tacks & you have to
affix the candle to the vertical surface board. As such no time limit is
there but, try to do it as soon as possible. If you have any doubt or query
you can ask me without any hesitation.”
Precautions:
Before the conduction of experiment, it was ensured that the lighting
facility in the lab was proper. It was made sure that the surface was
vertical, so that it would be possible to burn. In both the conditions the
subjects were same and in the age group of 5,6,7 years old.
Procedure:
The subject was made to sit in a quiet and comfortable environment.
Rapport has been established with the subjects by convincing them that
their responses will be kept confidential. Then the instructions were given
to the subject. As such no time limit was there to complete this
experiment, but to be done as soon as possible.one by one each subject
came tried to tuck the candle on the vertical board. In both the conditions,
their time taken, and responses were noted down carefully. While the
subject was writing introspective report, the experimenter was writing
observational report.
Introspective Report-:
Subject-1 It was a fun activity
Subject-2 I was a bit nervous during this experiment
Subject-3 I enjoyed this experiment
Observational Report-:
All three young subjects were very excited but also a bit apprehensive while
performing the experiment. They carefully analysed objects presented to them.
They seemed to enjoy the tasks given, and were very cooperative.
Results Report-:
5 years old 7 years old 8 years old
Time Taken Responses Time Taken Response Time Taken Responses
Condition 1 131 s Fixed it to 145 s Used tack 136 s Used tack
back of the pins to fix the pins to fix the
board with candle to the candle to the
the molten board board
wax of the
candle
Condition 2 86 s Fixed the 124 s Fixed the 100 s Fixed the
empty box to empty box to empty box to
the board to the board to the board to
make a self make a self make a self
Chart Title
160
140
120
Time Taken (Responses)
100
80
60
40
20
0
5 years 7 years 8 years
Age
Discussion-
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of functional
fixedness on the problem-solving ability to the participants. According to the
hypothesis 1 The adults and older children (7 yr. and 8yr. olds) will be
significantly slower to use the tack box as a shelf for the candle as compared to
the 5 years old and The time to reach the solution will be decreased for the older
children in the second condition of the experiment as compared to the first
condition of the experiment. To investigate this, 3 subjects (a 5-year-old, a 7-
year-old, and an 8-year-old) were presented with the experiments in two
conditions. In the first condition, the subjects were provided with a candle,
matchsticks, and a box of thumbtacks with the tacks placed inside the box, and
were asked to fix the candle to a vertical board using only the objects provided.
The time taken and the kind of response given by each of the three subjects
were noted carefully. In the second condition, the subjects were provided with a
candle, matchsticks, and a box of thumbtacks with the tacks placed out of the
box, and were again asked to fix the candle to the board using only the objects
provided. The time taken and the kind of response given by each of the three
subjects was again noted carefully. The results obtained in both the conditions
were tabulated in Table 1, and graphically represented in Graph 1.
As observed from Table1, subject 1 (5-year-old) took 131 seconds to fix
the candle to the board under the first condition, and took 86 seconds to
fix it in second condition. Whereas, the second subject and third subject
took respectively (2 subject- 145s and 124s, 3 subject- 136s and 100s)
proving the hypothesis. From these results it became clearer the older
children took more time to fix the candle (complete the tasks). To support
the results study given by German and Defeyter (2000) by used an
analogous task, we show that functional fixedness can be demonstrated in
older children (6- and 7-year-olds); they are significantly slower to use a
box as a support when its containment function has been demonstrated
than when it has not. However, younger children (5-year-olds) are
immune to this effect, showing no advantage when the standard function
is not demonstrated. Moreover, their performance under conditions of
preutilization is better than that of both older groups. These results are
interpreted in terms of children’s developing intuitions about function and
the effects of past experience on problem solving. Functional Fixedness
is more evident in older age as old people are bound to fixate themselves
on the function.
Conclusion-
The aim of this experiment aimed to investigate the effect of functional
fixedness on the problem-solving ability to the participants. According to the
results the older kids took more time solving the task hence proving the
hypothesis of the test.
References-
German, T.P., Defeyter, M.A. Immunity to functional fixedness in young
children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7, 707–712 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213010
Camarda, A., Salvia, M., Vidal, J., Weil, B., Poirel, N., Houdé, O., Borst, G., & Cassotti, M. (2018).
Neural basis of functional fixedness during creative idea generation: An EEG study.
Neuropsychologia, 118, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.009
German, T. P., & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Functional Fixedness in a Technologically Sparse
Culture. Psychological Science, 16(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-
7976.2005.00771.x
