Abstract
In two experiments, the strategies used by subjects playing the logical-deduction game, Mastermind, were examined. In the first experiment, subjects showed improvement resulting from the continued use of a particular strategic action, and the data suggested that the subjects learned the strategy from their transactions with the task. In the second experiment, the question of changes in underlying strategic knowledge of Mastermind was examined. The accuracy and complexity ofthe subjects' deductions and their use of the previously identified strategy were used to generate a model of the cognitive operations involved in Mastermind. Although there were improvements in the accuracy and complexity ofthe subjects' deductions resulting from continued play, these improvements were unrelated to the use of the strategy. Moreover, the likelihood of making accurate and complex deductions was well accounted for by a Markovian model, suggestingthat the deployment ofthe strategy was not driven by any change in the subject's underlying knowledge structures. Rather, the subjects seemed to use the strategy to create Mastermind situations whose interpretationwas fairly easy. The implications for previous work on the issue ofMastermind strategies and the development of logical-deduction strategies are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anzai, Y. (1987). Doing, understanding, and learning in problem solving. In D. Klahr, P. Langley, & R. Neches (Eds.),Production system models of learning and development (pp. 55–98). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Anzai, Y., &Simon, H. A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing.Psychological Review,86, 124–140.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., &Austin, G. A. (1956).Astudy of thinking. New York: Norton.
Carbonell, J. G. (1986). Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 2, pp. 137–161). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Coombs, C. H. Dawes, R. M., &Tversy, A. (1970).Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., &Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, E. S. (1971). Objective identification of strategy on a selection concept learning task.Journal of ExperimentalPsychology Monographs,90, 167–196.
Johnson, E. S. (1978). Validation ofconcept learning strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,107, 237–266.
Langley, P. (1985). Learning to search: From weak methods to domainspecific heuristics.Cognitive Science,9, 217–260.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., &Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems.Science,208, 1335–1342.
Laughlin, P. R., Lange, R., &Adamopoulos, J. (1982). Selection strategies for “Mastermind” problems.Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 475–483.
Newell, A., &Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ohlsson, S. (1987). Truth versus appropriateness: Relating declarative to procedural knowledge. In D. Klahr, P. Langley, & R. Neches (Eds.),Production system models of learning and development (pp. 287–328). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Siegel, S. (1956).Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Swed, F. S., &Eisenhart, C. (1943). Tables for testing randomness of grouping in a sequence of alternatives.Annals of Mathematical Statistics,14, 66–87.
Wickens, T. D. (1982).Modelsfor behavior: Stochastic processes in psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
—Accepted by previous editor, Alice F. Healy
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Best, J.B. Knowledge acquisition and strategic action in “Mastermind” problems. Mem Cogn 18, 54–64 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202646
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202646