Individual Differences in Need for Cognition and Complex Problem Solving

2000 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.Unnikrishnan Nair ◽  
S. Ramnarayan
2018 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 53-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Rudolph ◽  
Samuel Greiff ◽  
Anja Strobel ◽  
Franzis Preckel

2016 ◽  
Vol 108 (7) ◽  
pp. 1028-1044 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha Wüstenberg ◽  
Samuel Greiff ◽  
Mari-Pauliina Vainikainen ◽  
Kevin Murphy

Author(s):  
Nils B. Jostmann ◽  
Annika Gieselmann

Complex problems often include a response conflict between a subgoal and a final goal. The present experiment investigated the roles of situational demands and individual differences in self-regulation on solving goal-subgoal conflicts in a computerized Tower of Hanoi task. Action-oriented versus state-oriented individuals were randomly assigned to a demanding condition in which they deliberated about a personal decision problem, or to a nondemanding control condition. In line with expectations state-oriented individuals had greater difficulties to solve goal-subgoal conflicts in the demanding compared to the nondemanding condition. Action-oriented individuals performed well in both conditions. In line with Personality Systems Interactions theory ( Kuhl, 2000 ) the findings show that complex problem solving depends on how well people are able to deal with situational demands.


2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Schmidt-Weigand ◽  
Martin Hänze ◽  
Rita Wodzinski

How can worked examples be enhanced to promote complex problem solving? N = 92 students of the 8th grade attended in pairs to a physics problem. Problem solving was supported by (a) a worked example given as a whole, (b) a worked example presented incrementally (i.e. only one solution step at a time), or (c) a worked example presented incrementally and accompanied by strategic prompts. In groups (b) and (c) students self-regulated when to attend to the next solution step. In group (c) each solution step was preceded by a prompt that suggested strategic learning behavior (e.g. note taking, sketching, communicating with the learning partner, etc.). Prompts and solution steps were given on separate sheets. The study revealed that incremental presentation lead to a better learning experience (higher feeling of competence, lower cognitive load) compared to a conventional presentation of the worked example. However, only if additional strategic learning behavior was prompted, students remembered the solution more correctly and reproduced more solution steps.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Greiff ◽  
Katarina Krkovic ◽  
Jarkko Hautamäki

Abstract. In this study, we explored the network of relations between fluid reasoning, working memory, and the two dimensions of complex problem solving, rule knowledge and rule application. In doing so, we replicated the recent study by Bühner, Kröner, and Ziegler (2008) and the structural relations investigated therein [ Bühner, Kröner, & Ziegler, (2008) . Working memory, visual-spatial intelligence and their relationship to problem-solving. Intelligence, 36, 672–680]. However, in the present study, we used different assessment instruments by employing assessments of figural, numerical, and verbal fluid reasoning, an assessment of numerical working memory, and a complex problem solving assessment using the MicroDYN approach. In a sample of N = 2,029 Finnish sixth-grade students of which 328 students took the numerical working memory assessment, the findings diverged substantially from the results reported by Bühner et al. Importantly, in the present study, fluid reasoning was the main source of variation for rule knowledge and rule application, and working memory contributed only a little added value. Albeit generally in line with previously conducted research on the relation between complex problem solving and other cognitive abilities, these findings directly contrast the results of Bühner et al. (2008) who reported that only working memory was a source of variation in complex problem solving, whereas fluid reasoning was not. Explanations for the different patterns of results are sought, and implications for the use of assessment instruments and for research on interindividual differences in complex problem solving are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
André Kretzschmar ◽  
Stephan Nebe

In order to investigate the nature of complex problem solving (CPS) within the nomological network of cognitive abilities, few studies have simultantiously considered working memory and intelligence, and results are inconsistent. The Brunswik symmetry principle was recently discussed as a possible explanation for the inconsistent findings because the operationalizations differed greatly between the studies. Following this assumption, 16 different combinations of operationalizations of working memory and fluid reasoning were examined in the present study (N = 152). Based on structural equation modeling with single-indicator latent variables (i.e., corrected for measurement error), it was found that working memory incrementally explained CPS variance above and beyond fluid reasoning in only 2 of 16 conditions. However, according to the Brunswik symmetry principle, both conditions can be interpreted as an asymmetrical (unfair) comparison, in which working memory was artificially favored over fluid reasoning. We conclude that there is little evidence that working memory plays a unique role in solving complex problems independent of fluid reasoning. Furthermore, the impact of the Brunswik symmetry principle was clearly demonstrated as the explained variance in CPS varied between 4 and 31%, depending on which operationalizations of working memory and fluid reasoning were considered. We argue that future studies investigating the interplay of cognitive abilities will benefit if the Brunswik principle is taken into account.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document