Abstract
Why do humans attempt to discover better alternatives to solve a problem even when they know the way to solve it? This question is related to the flexibility of thinking and is the subject of studies on the Einstellung effect. This study focuses on cognitive load for familiar trained procedure as a factor that influences the discovery of alternatives in Einstellung situations, where the problem can be solved using a trained procedure. Many studies on creative problem solving and strategy selection demonstrate that cognitive load for facilitates the discovery of alternatives. However, findings are inconsistent regarding Einstellung situations. We argue that the reason for such inconsistent results were the use of manipulations such as the double task, which both load on the trained and alternative procedure and the lack of perspective on efficiency in analysis. Therefore, we examine the relationship between cognitive load manipulated by the complexity of the trained procedure and time-based performance measured by the number of trials prior to finding alternatives. The results illustrate that higher cognitive load increased the efficiency of discovery of alternatives and that this effect was significant for participants with high working memory capacity. This study provides empirical evidence that high cognitive load for trained procedure facilitates the discovery of alternatives and suggests the importance of considering temporal properties, such as efficiency, when examining the effects of working memory on problem solving, which requires cognitive flexibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Reference
Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Mmetacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
Ansari, T. L., Derakshan, N., & Richards, A. (2008). Effects of anxiety on task switching: Evidence from the mixed antisaccade task. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.3.229
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action (45th ed.). OuP Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001
Ball, L. J., Marsh, J. E., Litchfield, D., Cook, R. L., & Booth, N. (2015). When distraction helps: Evidence that concurrent articulation and irrelevant speech can facilitate insight problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.934399
Baranes, A. F., Oudeyer, P. Y., & Gottlieb, J. (2014). The effects of task difficulty, novelty and the size of the search space on intrinsically motivated exploration. Frontiers in nNeuroscience, 8, 317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00317
Barbey, A. K., Colom, R., & Grafman, J. (2013). Architecture of cognitive flexibility revealed by lesion mapping. NeuroIimage, 82, 547–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.087
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Sscience, 16(2), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x
Beilock, S. L., & DeCaro, M. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 983–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.983
Beilock, S. L., Kulp, C. A., Holt, L. E., & Carr, T. H. (2004). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), 584–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.584
Beilock, S. L., Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.256
Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008a). Inflexibility of experts—Reality or myth? Quantifying the Einstellung effect in chess masters. Cognitive Ppsychology, 56(2), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.02.001
Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2010). The mechanism of the Einstellung (Set) effect: A pervasive source of cognitive bias. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410363571
Bilalićc, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008b). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of pernicious Einstellung (Set) effect. Cognition, 108, 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.005
Braem, S., & Egner, T. (2018). Getting a grip on cognitive flexibility. Current dDirections in Psychological Science, 27(6), 470–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418787475
Cañas, J., Quesada, J., Antolí, A., & Fajardo, I. (2003). Cognitive flexibility and adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving tasks. Ergonomics, 46(5), 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000061640
Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Stereotype threat and inflexible perseverance in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 853–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.003
Caviola, S., Mammarella, I. C., Cornoldi, C., & Lucangeli, D. (2012). The involvement of working memory in children’s exact and approximate mental addition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.02.005
Caviola, S., Carey, E., Mammarella, I. C., & Szucs, D. (2017). Stress, time pressure, strategy selection and math anxiety in mathematics: A review of the literature. Frontiers in pPsychology, 8, 1488. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01488
Chesney, D. L., McNeil, N. M., Brockmole, J. R., & Kelley, K. (2013). An eye for relations: eEye-tracking indicates long-term negative effects of operational thinking on understanding of math equivalence. Memory & cCognition, 41(7), 1079–1095. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0315-8
Crooks, N. M., & McNeil, N. M. (2009). Increased practice with “set” problems hinders performance on the water jar task. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 31(31), 643–648. https://philpapers.org/rec/CROIPW
Croskerry, P. (2003). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic mMedicine, 78(8), 775–780. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003
de Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
De Caro, M. S. (2018). When does higher working memory capacity help or hinder insight problem solving? In Frédéric F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Ed.), Insight: on the origins of new ideas (pp. 79–104). Routledge.
DeCaro, M. S., Van Stockum, C. A., & Jr., & Wieth, M. B. (2016). When higher working memory capacity hinders insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000152
Dubey, R., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020). Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational analysis of curiosity. Psychological Review, 127(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000175
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving (L. S. Lees, Trans.). Psychological Monographs, 58(5 Whole No. 270), 1–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599
Ellis, J. J., & Reingold, E. M. (2014). The Einstellung effect in anagram problem solving: eEvidence from eye movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 679. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00679
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two- factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 145–199). Elsevier.
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Eemotion, 6(6), 409–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208409696
Eysenck, M. W., & Derakshan, N. (2011). New perspectives in attentional control theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 955–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.019
Fischer, H., & Holt, D. V. (2017). When high working memory capacity is and is not beneficial for predicting nonlinear processes. Memory & Ccognition, 45(3), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0665-0
Galy, E., Cariou, M., & Mélan, C. (2012). What is the relationship between mental workload factors and cognitive load types? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(3), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.023
Gilhooly, K. J., & Fioratou, E. (2009). Executive functions in insight versus non-insight problem solving: An individual differences approach. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(4), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780903178615
Grambsch, P. M., & Therneau, T. M. (1994). Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika, 81(3), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/81.3.515
Haager, J. S., Kuhbandner, C., & Pekrun, R. (2014). Overcoming fixed mind sets: The role of affect. Cognition & Emotion, 28(4), 756–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.851645
Huang, F., Zhao, Q., Zhou, Z., & Luo, J. (2019). People got lost in solving a set of similar problems. NeuroImage, 186(1), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.063
Imbo, I., & LeFevre, J. A. (2010). The role of phonological and visual working memory in complex arithmetic for Chinese-and Canadian-educated adults. Memory & Cognition, 38(2), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.2.176
Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being the target of prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17(3), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01695.x
Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. G. (2007). Mere effort and stereotype threat performance effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.544
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F
Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron, 88(3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010
Kidd, C., Piantadosi, S. T., & Aslin, R. N. (2012). The Goldilocks effect: Human infants allocate attention to visual sequences that are neither too simple nor too complex. PLOS ONE, 7(5), e36399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036399
Kleinbaum, D. G., & Klein, M. (2012). Survival analysis: aA self-learning text (3rd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29150-4
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195762
Kobayashi, A., & Okubo, M. (2014). Assessment of working memory capacity with a Japanese version of the Operation Span Test. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.85.60
Laird, B. K., Bailey, C. D., & Hester, K. (2018). The effects of monitoring environment on problem-solving performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(2), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1324396
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54(6), 1–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093502
Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1950). New experimental attempts at preventing mechanization in problem solving. The Journal of General Psychology, 42(2), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1950.9920160
Maule, A.J., Hockey, G.R.J. (1993). State, stress, and time pressure. In: Svenson, O., Maule, A.J. (eds) Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6846-6_6
Minton, H. L. (1963). A replication of perceptual curiosity as a function of stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 522–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044748
Neroni, M. A., Vasconcelos, L. A., & Crilly, N. (2017). Computer-based “mental Set” tasks: An alternative approach to studying design fixation. Journal of Mechanical Design, 139(7), 071102. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036562
Ninomiya, Y., Terai, H., & Miwa, K. (2022). Differences in the distribution of attention to trained procedure between finders and non-finders of the alternative better procedure. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934029
Noël, M. P., Désert, M., Aubrun, A., & Seron, X. (2001). Involvement of short-term memory in complex mental calculation. Memory & Ccognition, 29(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195738
Ohlsson, S. (2018). The dialectic between routine and creative cognition. In Frédéric F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Ed.), Insight: on the origins of new idea (pp. 79–104). Routledge.
Okada, T., & Ishibashi, K. (2017). Imitation, inspiration, and creation: Cognitive process of creative drawing by copying others artworks. Cognitive Sscience, 41(7), 1804–1837. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12442
Ricks, T. R., Turley-Ames, K. J., & Wiley, J. (2007). Effects of working memory capacity on mental Set due to domain knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 35(6), 1456–1462. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193615
Ruiz, S., Chen, X., Rebuschat, P., & Meurers, D. (2019). Measuring individual differences in cognitive abilities in the lab and on the web. PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0226217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226217
Sahai, R., & Frese, M. (2019). If you have a hammer, you only look for nails: tThe relationship between the Einstellung effect and business opportunity identification. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12346
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440
Schultz, P. W., & Searleman, A. (2002). Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128(2), 165–207. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-15591-003. Accessed 2023/08/03
Sheridan, H., & Reingold, E. M. (2013). The mechanisms and boundary conditions of the Einstellung effect in chess: Evidence from eye movements. PLOS ONE, 8(10), e75796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075796
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence: Maintenance and disengagement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 771–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616650647
Sowden, P. T., Pringle, A., & Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual-process theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.885464
Thevenot, C., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The strategic use of alternative representations in arithmetic word problem solving. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(7), 1311–1323. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000593
Thevenot, C., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Representations and strategies for solving dynamic and static arithmetic word problems: The role of working memory capacities. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(5), 756–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440500412270
Thevenot, C., & Oakhill, J. (2008). A generalization of the representational change theory from insight to non-insight problems: The case of arithmetic word problems. Acta Psychologica, 129(3), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.08.008
Thomas, C., Didierjean, A., Maquestiaux, F., & Gygax, P. (2015). Does magic offer a cryptozoology ground for psychology? Review of General Psychology, 19(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000041
Thomas, C., Didierjean, A., & Kuhn, G. (2018). It is magic! How impossible solutions prevent the discovery of obvious ones? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(12), 2481–2487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817743439
Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and lLanguage, 28(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104.
Unsworth, N., & Robison, M. K. (2017). The importance of arousal for variation in working memory capacity and attention control: A latent variable pupillometry study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(12), 1962–1987.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Rresearch Methods, 37(3), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720
Van Stockum, C. A., Jr., & De Caro, M. S., Jr. (2020). When working memory mechanisms compete: Predicting cognitive flexibility versus mental set. Cognition, 201, 104313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104313
Visu-Petra, L., Miclea, M., Cheie, L., & Benga, O. (2009). Processing efficiency in preschoolers’ memory span: Individual differences related to age and anxiety. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.09.002
Visu-Petra, L., Cheie, L., & Miu, A. C. (2013). Working memory and anxiety. In T. PackiamAlloway & R. G. Alloway (Eds.), Working memory: The connected intelligence (pp. 209–238). Psychology Press.
Wang, Z., & Shah, P. (2014). The effect of pressure on high-and low-working-memory students: An elaboration of the choking under pressure hypothesis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12027
Wiley, J., & Jarosz, A. F. (2012). Working memory capacity, attentional focus, and problem solving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412447622
Funding
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Number No. 22H03912).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
We know of no conflicts of interest associated with this publication, and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
Ethics approval
This study was conducted with the approval of the ethics committee of the affiliated institution.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication
Participants signed informed consent regarding publishing their data. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to Memory and & Cognition.
Open Practices Statement
None of the experiments was preregistered.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ninomiya, Y., Iwata, T., Terai, H. et al. Effect of cognitive load and working memory capacity on the efficiency of discovering better alternatives: A survival analysis. Mem Cogn 52, 115–131 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01448-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01448-w