Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 707–712 | Cite as

Immunity to functional fixedness in young children

Brief Reports

Abstract

In thecandle problem (Duncker, 1945), subjects must attach a candle to a vertical surface, using only a box of tacks and a book of matches. Subjects exhibitfunctional fixedness by failing, or being slow, to make use of one object (the tack box) as a support, rather than as a container, in their solutions. This failure to produce alternate functions is measured against improved performance when the tack box is presented empty rather than full of tacks (i.e., not preutilized as a container). Using 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.

References

  1. Abravanel, E., &Gingold, H. (1985). Learning via observation during the second year of life.Developmental Psychology,21, 614–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamson, R. E. (1952). Functional fixedness as related to problem solving: A repetition of three experiments.Journal of Experimental Psychology,44, 288–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Campione, J., Brown, A., &Ferrera, R. (1982). Mental retardation and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 392–490). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Case, R. (1985).Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Defeyter, M. A. &German, T. P. (2000, September).Immunity to fractional fixedness in young children: Flexible or impoverished understanding of object function? Poster presented at the BPS Cognitive Section Conference, University of Essex.Google Scholar
  6. Dominowski, R. L. (1981). Comment on “An examination of the alleged role of ‘fixation’ in the solution of several ‘insight’ problems” by Weisberg and Alba.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dominowski, R. L., &Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight (pp. 33–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving.Psychological Monographs,58, 5 (Whole No. 270).Google Scholar
  9. Gauvain, M., &Greene, J. K. (1994). What do young children know about objects?Cognitive Development,9, 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. German, T. P., &Johnson, S. A. (1996, August).Children’s knowledge of artifacts: Origins of the “design stance.” Poster presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal. [Abstract:International Journal of Psychology,31, 342]Google Scholar
  11. German, T. P., &Johnson, S. A. (1997, April).Agents, goals and origins: Children’s understanding of artifact function. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Gopnik, A., &Meltzoff, A. N. (1997).Words, thoughts and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, C. (1998). Executive function in preschoolers: Links with theory of mind and verbal ability.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,16, 233–253.Google Scholar
  14. Keane, M. T. (1989). Modelling problem solving in Gestalt “insight” problems.Irish Journal of Psychology,10, 201–215.Google Scholar
  15. Kelemen, D. A. (1999). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children.Cognition,70, 241–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Leslie, A. M., &Polizzi, P. (1998). Inhibitory processing in the false belief task: Two conjectures.Developmental Science,1, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maier, N. R. F. (1970).Problem solving and creativity in individuals and groups. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  18. Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M. H., Rosen, T. J., &Xu, F. (1992).Over-regularization in language acquisition (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 57, No. 4). Chicago: Society for Research in Child Development.Google Scholar
  19. McDonough, L., &Mandler, J. (1998). Inductive generalization in 9- and 11-month-olds.Developmental Science,1, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morton, J., &Johnson, M. H. (1991). CONSPEC and CONLERN: A two-process theory of infant face recognition.Psychological Review,98, 164–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ohlsson, S. (1984). Restructuring revisited: II. An information processing theory of restructuring and insight.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,25, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Piaget, J. (1954).The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Russell, J., Jarrold, C., &Potel, D. (1994). What makes strategic deception difficult for children—the deception or the strategy?British Journal of Developmental Psychology,12, 301–314.Google Scholar
  24. Siegler, R. (1996).Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Weisberg, R. W., &Alba, J. W. (1981a). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weisberg, R. W., &Alba, J. W. (1981b). Gestalt theory, insight and past experience: Reply to Dominowski.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wimmer, H., &Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in children’s understanding of deception.Cognition,53, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of EssexColchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations