mental set problem solving

Mental set refers to a cognitive tendency or predisposition to approach problem-solving or decision-making situations in a particular way, based on previous experiences or familiar strategies. It involves a fixed mindset that influences how individuals perceive and interpret information, as well as how they apply problem-solving techniques.

Components of Mental Set

1. Fixed Patterns of Thinking: Mental set involves relying on established patterns of thinking or problem-solving techniques instead of considering alternative approaches. These patterns can be based on prior successful experiences or learned strategies.

2. Resistance to Change: Mental set can create resistance to changing one’s perspective or trying new problem-solving methods. Individuals may feel comfortable and find it difficult to deviate from their familiar mental framework, even if it may not be the most effective approach.

3. Influence of Context: Mental set is highly influenced by the specific context in which a problem or decision arises. The environment, previous experiences, and societal norms can shape an individual’s mental set and lead them to approach situations in a particular way.

Examples of Mental Set

1. Functional Fixedness: A person utilizing functional fixedness may see a household item, such as a screwdriver, only as a tool for tightening or loosening screws, without considering its potential alternative uses.

2. Expertise: Experts in a particular field often develop a mental set that allows them to quickly solve problems within their domain of knowledge. However, this expertise can also hinder their ability to think creatively or consider alternative perspectives.

3. Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias is a type of mental set that involves seeking information or evidence that supports one’s preexisting beliefs or expectations while ignoring or dismissing contradictory information.

4. Routine Thinking: Engaging in routine thinking can become a mental set where individuals approach problems or decisions in the same way, without questioning established methods. This can limit their ability to find innovative solutions.

Overcoming Mental Set

1. Increased Awareness: Recognizing the existence of mental set and its potential limitations can help individuals be more open to trying new perspectives or problem-solving approaches.

2. Encouraging Divergent Thinking: Cultivating an environment that encourages diverse viewpoints and alternative strategies can help break free from the constraints of mental set and stimulate creative problem-solving.

3. Deconstructing Assumptions: Challenging and revisiting underlying assumptions can broaden one’s mindset and allow for a more flexible approach to problem-solving.

4. Seeking External Input: Consulting others with different perspectives or expertise can provide fresh insights and help overcome the limitations imposed by mental set.

• Best-Selling Books
• Zimbardo Research Fields

The Stanford Prison Experiment

• Heroic Imagination Project (HIP)
• The Shyness Clinic

The Lucifer Effect

Time perspective theory.

• Psychology Definitions

Mental Set: Psychology Definition, History & Examples

In psychology, the concept of a mental set refers to a person’s inclination to approach situations in a fixed way based on their previous experiences and perceptions. This cognitive framework influences how individuals solve problems and can both aid and hinder the decision-making process.

The history of mental set as a psychological construct extends back to the early 20th century, with significant contributions from gestalt psychologists who studied patterns of thought and problem-solving.

Over the years, numerous examples have been documented that illustrate how mental sets can lead to both efficient problem resolution and to cognitive rigidity that precludes alternative solutions.

Understanding mental sets is crucial for comprehending human behavior and cognition , and has implications for fields ranging from education to cognitive therapy.

Table of Contents

A mental set is a cognitive framework that influences how a person approaches problem-solving based on their past experiences and successes. It can be helpful by promoting efficiency and confidence, but it can also limit creativity and adaptability.

Mental sets are rooted in heuristics, which are mental shortcuts that expedite decision-making but may hinder critical evaluation and innovative thinking.

The concept of a mental set originated in the early 20th century within the field of psychology. It was primarily developed by Gestalt psychologists, who focused on the role of perception in problem-solving. These psychologists believed that cognitive processes were not simply reactions to stimuli but were influenced by inherent patterns and structures within the human mind.

The term ‘mental set’ was later expanded upon to describe a predisposition to approach a problem in a fixed manner, based on past experiences and habitual patterns of thinking. This concept emerged as a result of various studies and experiments conducted by key figures in psychology.

Two notable psychologists associated with the development of the mental set concept are Karl Duncker and Wolfgang Köhler. Their methodical examination of historical experiments shed light on how mental sets can both aid and hinder problem-solving. Their analyses played a significant role in understanding how prior knowledge and learned strategies could limit the consideration of alternative solutions.

One significant event that contributed to the evolution of the mental set concept was the research conducted by Duncker in the 1930s. His studies focused on the phenomenon of functional fixedness, which is a type of mental set that inhibits the ability to see objects or concepts beyond their typical or familiar uses. Duncker’s experiments demonstrated how mental sets can restrict problem-solving by creating a narrow focus on previously learned associations.

Another influential study was conducted by Köhler in the 1920s. His research with chimpanzees demonstrated insight problem-solving, which challenged the prevailing behaviorist view that all problem-solving was based solely on trial and error. Köhler’s work highlighted the importance of mental sets in facilitating creative problem-solving by breaking away from fixed patterns of thinking.

These significant events and studies contributed to the evolution of the mental set concept within psychology. Today, mental sets continue to be a fundamental aspect of cognitive psychology, helping researchers understand how our past experiences and preconceived notions can influence our problem-solving abilities.

Several examples can help us understand how mental sets shape our approach to problem-solving and influence our behavior in everyday life.

For instance, imagine you’re trying to fix a leaky faucet in your kitchen. You’ve always used a specific method that worked in the past, so you automatically assume it’s the best way to solve the problem. However, there might be a simpler solution available, like replacing a worn-out washer. Your rigid mental set prevents you from considering alternative approaches and hinders your ability to find a quicker and easier fix.

On the other hand, let’s consider a different scenario. Imagine you’re an experienced chef who specializes in making pasta dishes. Over the years, you’ve developed a mental set of different cooking techniques, ingredient combinations, and flavor profiles that work well together. This mental set allows you to efficiently recognize patterns and apply established strategies, resulting in delicious and successful pasta dishes.

In an educational context, mental sets also play a role. Imagine a teacher who always uses the same teaching method for every lesson. This approach may work well for some students, but it can hinder the learning process for others who might need a different approach to grasp the material. A teacher who recognizes the influence of mental sets would vary their instructional methods, providing different problem-solving strategies to cater to the diverse learning needs of their students. This approach fosters a more adaptive and robust learning environment , allowing students to develop a broader set of problem-solving skills.

Related Terms

Understanding mental sets is greatly enhanced by examining a few key psychological concepts that share connections with this phenomenon.

‘Cognitive rigidity’, for instance, denotes an individual’s resistance to change in thought patterns, which is inherently linked to the persistence of a mental set despite new information. Cognitive rigidity is similar to a mental set in that it involves a rigid adherence to existing cognitive frameworks or ways of thinking. However, while a mental set specifically refers to a fixed mindset or approach to problem-solving, cognitive rigidity encompasses a broader range of inflexible thinking patterns.

Similarly, ‘functional fixedness’ is a cognitive bias that limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used, reflecting a type of mental set focused on problem-solving. Functional fixedness and mental sets are closely related as they both involve a narrow focus on familiar problem-solving strategies or restricted views of object functions. However, functional fixedness specifically refers to the inability to see alternative uses for an object, while a mental set can encompass broader cognitive frameworks beyond object usage.

‘Confirmation bias’, the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs, also ties into the rigidity of mental sets. Confirmation bias and mental sets are linked as they both involve a tendency to maintain existing cognitive frameworks and resist information that challenges those frameworks. However, confirmation bias is a broader phenomenon that applies to belief systems in general, while mental sets specifically pertain to problem-solving approaches.

Each term reflects facets of cognitive inflexibility, underscoring the breadth of mental set implications in various cognitive processes. While cognitive rigidity, functional fixedness, and confirmation bias all share similarities with mental sets, they each provide distinct perspectives on the rigidity of cognitive processes and the influences on decision-making and problem-solving.

Scholarship on mental sets draws from a wide range of reputable sources that have significantly contributed to our understanding of this psychological term. These sources include seminal works by early 20th-century psychologists, such as Gestalt psychologists Max Wertheimer and Wolfgang Köhler, who laid the groundwork for the concept of mental sets (Wertheimer, 1923; Köhler, 1947).

Additionally, contemporary cognitive science journals like Cognitive Psychology and Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory , and Cognition have published numerous peer-reviewed articles that delve into the intricacies of mental sets (e.g., Smith & Kosslyn, 2007; Lleras & Von Mühlenen, 2004).

Cross-references from related disciplines such as neuroscience and education also contribute to our understanding of mental sets. For example, studies using neuroimaging techniques have provided valuable insights into the neural mechanisms underlying mental sets (e.g., Krawczyk, Gazzaley, & D’Esposito, 2007). Similarly, educational research has explored how mental sets affect learning and problem-solving in various educational contexts (e.g., Perkins, 1986).

It is important to note that the reference list for a comprehensive study on mental sets is not just a collection of citations, but rather a curated map of the intellectual terrain. Each source is carefully evaluated for its methodological rigor, relevance to the topic, and contribution to the understanding of mental set phenomena. This ensures that the references cited provide a solid foundation for further reading and enable readers to navigate the complexities of cognitive processes and their implications.

References:

Gestalt psychologists. (1923). Gestalt theory . Psychological Bulletin, 20(12), 531-585.

Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York, NY: Liveright.

Krawczyk, D. C., Gazzaley, A., & D’Esposito, M. (2007). Reward modulation of prefrontal and visual association cortex during an incentive working memory task. Brain Research, 1141, 168-177.

Lleras, A., & Von Mühlenen, A. (2004). Spatial context and top-down strategies in visual search. Spatial Vision, 17(4-5), 465-482.

Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, E. E., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2007). Cognitive psychology: Mind and brain. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

RECOMMENDED POSTS

• Stay Connected
• Terms Of Use

How to develop a problem-solving mindset

May 14, 2023 Leaders today are confronted with more problems, of greater magnitude, than ever before. In these volatile times, it’s natural to react based on what’s worked best in the past. But when you’re solving the toughest business challenges on an ongoing basis, it’s crucial to start from a place of awareness. “If you are in an uncertain situation, the most important thing you can do is calm down,” says senior partner Aaron De Smet , who coauthored Deliberate Calm  with Jacqueline Brassey  and Michiel Kruyt. “Take a breath. Take stock. ‘Is the thing I’m about to do the right thing to do?’ And in many cases, the answer is no. If you were in a truly uncertain environment, if you’re in new territory, the thing you would normally do might not be the right thing.” Practicing deliberate calm not only prepares you to deal with the toughest problems, but it enhances the quality of your decisions, makes you more productive, and enables you to be a better leader. Check out these insights to learn how to develop a problem-solving mindset—and understand why the solution to any problem starts with you.

When things get rocky, practice deliberate calm

Developing dual awareness;

How to learn and lead calmly through volatile times

Future proof: Solving the ‘adaptability paradox’ for the long term

How to demonstrate calm and optimism in a crisis

How to maintain a ‘Longpath’ mindset, even amid short-term crises

Addressing employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem?

April Rinne on finding calm and meaning in a world of flux

How spiritual health fosters human resilience

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Problem-Solving Strategies and Obstacles

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Sean is a fact-checker and researcher with experience in sociology, field research, and data analytics.

JGI / Jamie Grill / Getty Images

• Application
• Improvement

From deciding what to eat for dinner to considering whether it's the right time to buy a house, problem-solving is a large part of our daily lives. Learn some of the problem-solving strategies that exist and how to use them in real life, along with ways to overcome obstacles that are making it harder to resolve the issues you face.

What Is Problem-Solving?

In cognitive psychology , the term 'problem-solving' refers to the mental process that people go through to discover, analyze, and solve problems.

A problem exists when there is a goal that we want to achieve but the process by which we will achieve it is not obvious to us. Put another way, there is something that we want to occur in our life, yet we are not immediately certain how to make it happen.

Maybe you want a better relationship with your spouse or another family member but you're not sure how to improve it. Or you want to start a business but are unsure what steps to take. Problem-solving helps you figure out how to achieve these desires.

The problem-solving process involves:

• Discovery of the problem
• Deciding to tackle the issue
• Seeking to understand the problem more fully
• Researching available options or solutions
• Taking action to resolve the issue

Before problem-solving can occur, it is important to first understand the exact nature of the problem itself. If your understanding of the issue is faulty, your attempts to resolve it will also be incorrect or flawed.

Problem-Solving Mental Processes

Several mental processes are at work during problem-solving. Among them are:

• Perceptually recognizing the problem
• Representing the problem in memory
• Considering relevant information that applies to the problem
• Identifying different aspects of the problem
• Labeling and describing the problem

Problem-Solving Strategies

There are many ways to go about solving a problem. Some of these strategies might be used on their own, or you may decide to employ multiple approaches when working to figure out and fix a problem.

An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure that, by following certain "rules" produces a solution. Algorithms are commonly used in mathematics to solve division or multiplication problems. But they can be used in other fields as well.

In psychology, algorithms can be used to help identify individuals with a greater risk of mental health issues. For instance, research suggests that certain algorithms might help us recognize children with an elevated risk of suicide or self-harm.

One benefit of algorithms is that they guarantee an accurate answer. However, they aren't always the best approach to problem-solving, in part because detecting patterns can be incredibly time-consuming.

There are also concerns when machine learning is involved—also known as artificial intelligence (AI)—such as whether they can accurately predict human behaviors.

Heuristics are shortcut strategies that people can use to solve a problem at hand. These "rule of thumb" approaches allow you to simplify complex problems, reducing the total number of possible solutions to a more manageable set.

If you find yourself sitting in a traffic jam, for example, you may quickly consider other routes, taking one to get moving once again. When shopping for a new car, you might think back to a prior experience when negotiating got you a lower price, then employ the same tactics.

While heuristics may be helpful when facing smaller issues, major decisions shouldn't necessarily be made using a shortcut approach. Heuristics also don't guarantee an effective solution, such as when trying to drive around a traffic jam only to find yourself on an equally crowded route.

Trial and Error

A trial-and-error approach to problem-solving involves trying a number of potential solutions to a particular issue, then ruling out those that do not work. If you're not sure whether to buy a shirt in blue or green, for instance, you may try on each before deciding which one to purchase.

This can be a good strategy to use if you have a limited number of solutions available. But if there are many different choices available, narrowing down the possible options using another problem-solving technique can be helpful before attempting trial and error.

In some cases, the solution to a problem can appear as a sudden insight. You are facing an issue in a relationship or your career when, out of nowhere, the solution appears in your mind and you know exactly what to do.

Insight can occur when the problem in front of you is similar to an issue that you've dealt with in the past. Although, you may not recognize what is occurring since the underlying mental processes that lead to insight often happen outside of conscious awareness .

Research indicates that insight is most likely to occur during times when you are alone—such as when going on a walk by yourself, when you're in the shower, or when lying in bed after waking up.

How to Apply Problem-Solving Strategies in Real Life

If you're facing a problem, you can implement one or more of these strategies to find a potential solution. Here's how to use them in real life:

• Create a flow chart . If you have time, you can take advantage of the algorithm approach to problem-solving by sitting down and making a flow chart of each potential solution, its consequences, and what happens next.
• Recall your past experiences . When a problem needs to be solved fairly quickly, heuristics may be a better approach. Think back to when you faced a similar issue, then use your knowledge and experience to choose the best option possible.
• Start trying potential solutions . If your options are limited, start trying them one by one to see which solution is best for achieving your desired goal. If a particular solution doesn't work, move on to the next.
• Take some time alone . Since insight is often achieved when you're alone, carve out time to be by yourself for a while. The answer to your problem may come to you, seemingly out of the blue, if you spend some time away from others.

Obstacles to Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is not a flawless process as there are a number of obstacles that can interfere with our ability to solve a problem quickly and efficiently. These obstacles include:

• Assumptions: When dealing with a problem, people can make assumptions about the constraints and obstacles that prevent certain solutions. Thus, they may not even try some potential options.
• Functional fixedness : This term refers to the tendency to view problems only in their customary manner. Functional fixedness prevents people from fully seeing all of the different options that might be available to find a solution.
• Irrelevant or misleading information: When trying to solve a problem, it's important to distinguish between information that is relevant to the issue and irrelevant data that can lead to faulty solutions. The more complex the problem, the easier it is to focus on misleading or irrelevant information.
• Mental set: A mental set is a tendency to only use solutions that have worked in the past rather than looking for alternative ideas. A mental set can work as a heuristic, making it a useful problem-solving tool. However, mental sets can also lead to inflexibility, making it more difficult to find effective solutions.

How to Improve Your Problem-Solving Skills

In the end, if your goal is to become a better problem-solver, it's helpful to remember that this is a process. Thus, if you want to improve your problem-solving skills, following these steps can help lead you to your solution:

• Recognize that a problem exists . If you are facing a problem, there are generally signs. For instance, if you have a mental illness , you may experience excessive fear or sadness, mood changes, and changes in sleeping or eating habits. Recognizing these signs can help you realize that an issue exists.
• Decide to solve the problem . Make a conscious decision to solve the issue at hand. Commit to yourself that you will go through the steps necessary to find a solution.
• Seek to fully understand the issue . Analyze the problem you face, looking at it from all sides. If your problem is relationship-related, for instance, ask yourself how the other person may be interpreting the issue. You might also consider how your actions might be contributing to the situation.
• Research potential options . Using the problem-solving strategies mentioned, research potential solutions. Make a list of options, then consider each one individually. What are some pros and cons of taking the available routes? What would you need to do to make them happen?
• Take action . Select the best solution possible and take action. Action is one of the steps required for change . So, go through the motions needed to resolve the issue.
• Try another option, if needed . If the solution you chose didn't work, don't give up. Either go through the problem-solving process again or simply try another option.

You can find a way to solve your problems as long as you keep working toward this goal—even if the best solution is simply to let go because no other good solution exists.

Sarathy V. Real world problem-solving .  Front Hum Neurosci . 2018;12:261. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261

Dunbar K. Problem solving . A Companion to Cognitive Science . 2017. doi:10.1002/9781405164535.ch20

Stewart SL, Celebre A, Hirdes JP, Poss JW. Risk of suicide and self-harm in kids: The development of an algorithm to identify high-risk individuals within the children's mental health system . Child Psychiat Human Develop . 2020;51:913-924. doi:10.1007/s10578-020-00968-9

Rosenbusch H, Soldner F, Evans AM, Zeelenberg M. Supervised machine learning methods in psychology: A practical introduction with annotated R code . Soc Personal Psychol Compass . 2021;15(2):e12579. doi:10.1111/spc3.12579

Mishra S. Decision-making under risk: Integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology . Personal Soc Psychol Rev . 2014;18(3):280-307. doi:10.1177/1088868314530517

Csikszentmihalyi M, Sawyer K. Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment . In: The Systems Model of Creativity . 2015:73-98. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_7

Chrysikou EG, Motyka K, Nigro C, Yang SI, Thompson-Schill SL. Functional fixedness in creative thinking tasks depends on stimulus modality .  Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts . 2016;10(4):425‐435. doi:10.1037/aca0000050

Huang F, Tang S, Hu Z. Unconditional perseveration of the short-term mental set in chunk decomposition .  Front Psychol . 2018;9:2568. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02568

National Alliance on Mental Illness. Warning signs and symptoms .

Mayer RE. Thinking, problem solving, cognition, 2nd ed .

Schooler JW, Ohlsson S, Brooks K. Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. J Experiment Psychol: General . 1993;122:166-183. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.2.166

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Find what you need to study

5.7 Introduction to Thinking and Problem Solving

4 min read • december 22, 2022

Sadiyya Holsey

Haseung Jun

Attend a live cram event

Review all units live with expert teachers & students

So, we just went over memory, but how do we actually think and problem solve? 🤔

Problem Solving

There are two different ways by which you could solve problems:

An algorithm is a step by step method that guarantees to solve a particular problem.  

If you lost your phone📱, the algorithm might look like this: 

Remember where you put the phone last. If you don’t, go to the next step. ⤵️

Retrace your steps. If you can’t, go to the next step.⤵️

Call your phone to determine the location.

Algorithms are process oriented 🔄

Heuristics 

A heuristic is also known as a “rule of thumb.” Using heuristic is a quick way to solve a problem 💨 , but is usually less effective than using an algorithm (more error prone). Heuristics also involve using trial and error ❌

An example of a heuristic would be trying to find the x value that makes this equal true: 3x+6=24. You might plug in multiple x values until you determine the x value that works. 

Heuristics are the opposite of algorithms and are more result oriented. We use our mental set , schemas , prototypes , and concepts automatically when using heuristics .

How would you solve 3x624 using an algorithm?

Instead of using a heuristic and just plugging in answers till you find the right one, you could also solve this problem step by step using an algorithm . The steps may look like this:

Subtract 6 on both sides: 3x=18

Divide by 3 on both sides: x=6

You use a mixture of these two when taking a test and overall in everyday life activities🏃🍳.

Trial and Error

Trial and error is when you try to solve a problem multiple times using multiple methods. If you try to solve a problem one time using one method, the next time you solve it, you may use a different method. This process is repeated until a solution is reached.

Image Courtesy of Giphy .

How do we think?

A mental set is when individuals try to solve a problem the same way all the time because it has worked in the past. However, that doesn’t mean this problem solving method is applicable to the problem at hand or will work for other people. Having a mental set makes it harder to solve problems. Similarly, fixation is the inability to look at a problem with a different perspective.

Intuition is colloquially known as a “gut feeling.” It is sensing something without a direct reason and basically an automatic thought💾

When problem-solving and making difficult decisions, our brain intuits for us.

As we learn and grow, our intuition does, too. Our learned associations surface as this gut feeling that we have because of how we know the world works around us 🌎

Insight was discovered by Wolfgang Kohler. It occurs when an individual has an all-of the sudden understanding when solving a problem or learning something. It's that light bulb💡 moment!

Inductive Reasoning

Reasoning from something specific to something general, which puts your thought into concepts and groups.

Deductive Reasoning

Reasoning from something general to something specific. Think of mind-maps: you have one central idea in the middle (general) and then branch out into specific ideas.

These are usually more logical 🤔

Image Courtesy of Kristjan Pecanac .

Did you ever wonder how we get our creativity and to the extent to which it exists? Being creative is having the ability to produce ideas that are valuable. That's it; we're all creative in our own way.

There are five components of creativity 📸:

Expertise —The more knowledge we have, the more ideas we build. Knowledge is the foundation of every idea that comes about.

Generally, greater intelligence leads to a higher creativity 🎭 According to the threshold theory, a certain level of intelligence is necessary for creative work. However, it's not necessary sufficient, meaning other factors play in when it comes to creativity .

Imaginative thinking skills —In order to be creative, you must be open-minded and see things in different ways. These skills also include being able to make connections and recognize patterns in ideas.

A venturesome personality —Be willing to take risks, explore ideas, and try new things! 🧗

Intrinsic Motivation —This is to be driven by your interests and the will to explore for your own satisfaction.

A creative environment —All the above help fuel your creativity , but creativity can't exist without a supportive environment🌲

There are two different ways of thinking:

Convergent Thinking

This is the more logical way of thinking, in which we narrow the solutions to a problem till we find the best one. Convergent thinking is used in IQ and intelligence tests.

Divergent Thinking

The more creative way of thinking! You can think of this as brainstorming and diverging into different directions of thought. Rather than finding the best solution, divergent thinkers expand the number of solutions.

Divergent thinkers have a much easier time when problem solving since they have more of an open mind to trying different solutions.

Key Terms to Review ( 17 )

Creative Environment

Imaginative Thinking Skills

Intrinsic Motivation

Venturesome Personality

Stay Connected

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Unconditional Perseveration of the Short-Term Mental Set in Chunk Decomposition

A mental set generally refers to the brain’s tendency to stick with the most familiar solution to a problem and stubbornly ignore alternatives. This tendency is likely driven by previous knowledge (the long-term mental set) or is a temporary by-product of procedural learning (the short-term mental set). A similar problem situation is considered the factor required for perseveration of the long-term mental set, which may not be essential for the short-term mental set. To reveal the boundary conditions for perseveration of the short-term mental set, this study adopted a Chinese character decomposition task. Participants were asked to perform a practice problem that could be solved by a familiar loose chunk decomposition (loose solution) followed by a test problem, or they were asked to repeatedly perform 5–8practice problems followed by a test problem; the former is the base-set condition, and the latter is the enhanced-set condition. In Experiment 1, the test problem situation appeared to be similar to the practice problem and could be solved using the reinforced loose solution and also an unfamiliar tight chunk decomposition (tight solution) (a 2-solution problem). In Experiment 2, the test problem situation differed from the practice problem and could only be solved using an unfamiliar tight solution (a 1-solution problem). The results showed that, when comparing the enhanced-set and base-set conditions, both the accuracy rate and the response times for solving the test problem with a tight solution were worse in Experiment 1, whereas the response times were worse in Experiment 2. We concluded that perseveration of the short-term mental set was independent of the similarity between problem situations and discuss the differences in perseveration between two types of fixation.

Introduction

A mental set is also known as the Einstellung effect, which represents a form of rigidity in which an individual behaves or believes in a certain manner. In the field of psychology, this effect has typically been examined in the process of problem solving and specifically refers to the brain’s tendency to stick with the most familiar solution and to stubbornly ignore alternatives ( Schultz and Searleman , 2002 ). Both prior knowledge and a similar problem situation were considered the factors required to induce an attentional bias toward the familiar solution ( Lovett and Anderson, 1996 ). In addition, the mental set is also likely formed and strengthened by repeatedly practicing a particular solution in a short time and can be interpreted as a temporary by-product of procedural learning ( Ohlsson, 1992 ; Ollinger et al., 2008 ). However, whether a similar problem situation is an essential factor for perseveration of the short-term mental set remains largely unknown.

The mental set is likely driven by previous knowledge, particularly expertise in a domain ( Wiley, 1998 ; Ricks et al., 2007 ; Ellis and Reingold, 2014 ), which can be defined as the long-term mental set. This mental set always occurs when people are confronted with a problem situation that is similar to previously experienced problem situations. Previously acquired knowledge likely helps problem solvers to understand, interpret and solve problems quickly and also likely has a negative impact. For example, most errors that doctors make are not connected to their inadequate medical knowledge but rather to the tendency to form opinions quickly based on previous experience. Once the initial diagnosis is formed, it guides doctors in the search for supporting evidence, which in turn introduces a risk of missing important aspects unrelated to the initial diagnosis.

In a laboratory experiment, chess players were required to find a checkmate position with the fewest number of moves. If players were given a 2-solution problem that had two possible solutions, a familiar solution that took five moves and a less familiar solution that took three moves (the optimal solution), then most of the players selected the familiar but non-optimal solution and failed to notice the shorter solution ( Bilalić et al., 2008 ). Eye tracking technology revealed that the cognitive mechanism underlying this phenomenon was attentional bias, where previous knowledge likely directs attention toward relevant information and away from irrelevant information. Accordingly, players rapidly fixated on the target region that was associated with the familiar but longer solution (i.e., checkmate in five moves) and spent more time looking at these squares rather than those relevant to the shortest solution (i.e., checkmate in three moves), even when they reported that they were searching for alternative solutions in an open-minded manner ( Bilalić et al., 2008 , 2010 ; Sheridan and Reingold, 2013 ). Thus, the search for a solution became self-fulfilling as the familiar solution was consistent with previously acquired knowledge and was more likely to be utilized ( Bilalić et al., 2008 , 2010 ; citealpBR1). If a problem situation is different from previous experiences, then no cues will elicit retrieval of previously acquired knowledge and no attentional bias will occur.

In addition, the mental set is also likely strengthened by repeated practice in a short time and can be interpreted as a temporary by-product of procedural learning ( Ohlsson, 1992 ). One of the most famous examples is the so-called water jar problem, which was originally developed by Luchins ( Luchins, 1942 ; Luchins and Luchins, 1969 ). Participants are presented with three jars (A, B, and C), each of which holds a certain amount of water. The goal is to determine how the jars can be used to obtain a designated amount of water. A series of practice problems can only be solved using a complicated strategy (e.g., A – B – 2C), which participants learn quickly. Subsequently, the participants are provided a test problem (called the 2-solution problem) that could be solved using either the complicated strategy or a much easier strategy (e.g., A – C). Typically, most participants continue to use the complicated strategy instead of the simple strategy. In this case, fixation is induced by repeatedly reinforcing a small number of similar problems in people who have never experienced the task before, which can be defined as the short-term mental set.

In previous studies, the short-term mental effect has been demonstrated in both the laboratory and real-life settings using a range of different problem-solving tasks ( Schultz and Searleman, 2002 ). However, the neurocognitive mechanism underlying this effect and its boundary conditions remain largely unknown. One possibility is that the reinforced solution gradually realizes mechanization, which likely becomes automatically activated during the next problem when the problem situation is similar to the former practice problems. Accordingly, problem solvers progressively require less time to solve problems with a reinforced solution but also experience greater difficulties in searching for alternative solutions ( Neroni et al., 2017 ). Meanwhile, mechanization of a particular solution likely implies that people’s brains lost flexibility to manage novel stimuli or tasks. Therefore, although the next problem situation was different from the former practice problems, negative influences of the short-term mental set likely remained. More generally, regardless of whether the next problem is similar to the former practice problems, problem solving will be hindered when people try to use alternative solutions rather than the reinforced solution.

To reveal the boundary conditions of perseveration of the short-term mental set, a chunk decomposition task was adopted in this study. As a possible means to solve insight problems, chunk decomposition refers to decomposing familiar patterns into their components such that they can be regrouped in a different and meaningful manner ( Knoblich et al., 1999 ). Based on whether the components of the chunks to be decomposed are themselves meaningful perceptual patterns, chunk decomposition can be divided into loose and tight levels. Decomposing the numeral “VI” into “V” and “I” is an example of loose chunk decomposition, and decomposing ‘X’ into “/” and “∖” is an example of tight chunk decomposition because ‘VI’ is composed of meaningful small chunks (‘V’ and ‘I’), whereas ‘X’ is composed of meaningless small chunks (“/” and “∖”) ( Knoblich et al., 1999 ). Generally, participants are more familiar with loose chunk decomposition rather than tight chunk decomposition due to previous knowledge about chunks ( Knoblich et al., 1999 ; Wu et al., 2013 ; Huang et al., 2015 ), but the latter strategy is critical to solving insight problems. Moreover, previous studies have demonstrated that performance in solving mathematical problems with loose chunk decomposition (a loose solution) was improved by repeated practice in the set ( Knoblich et al., 2001 ; Chi and Snyder, 2011 ), i.e., the short-term mental set of chunk decomposition was formed and strengthened by intense practice. After repeatedly solving 5∼8 practice mathematical problems using a loose solution, participants were asked to solve a test mathematical problem, which was different from the practice problem and could only be solved by tight chunk decomposition (a tight solution), in the experimental condition; or else participants were asked to perform a test mathematical problem after repeatedly solving several anagrams in the control condition ( Ollinger et al., 2008 ). Results showed no significant difference in the performance of the test problem between two conditions. Researchers believe that the short-term mental set did not perseverate in the test problem since it was insightful ( Ollinger et al., 2008 ) and different from the practice problem situation. However, another possibility is that perseveration of the short-term mental set was independent on the problem situation similarity, and was happened in both the experimental condition and the control condition; or the short-term mental set likely perseverate in a totally different problem situation.

To further reveal the boundary condition of the short-term mental set, we selectively adopted the design of Ollinger et al. (2008) in this study. Participants were asked to repeatedly perform 5–8 practice problems that could be solved using a loose solution, followed by a test problem, or they were asked to perform a single practice problem followed by a test problem; the former is the enhanced-set condition, and the latter is the base-set condition. In Experiment 1, the test problem situation appeared to be similar to the practice problem and could be solved by the reinforced loose solution and also an unfamiliar tight solution (a 2-solution problem). In Experiment 2, the test problem situation was different from the practice problem and could only be solved by an unfamiliar tight solution (a 1-solution problem). By comparing the success probability and response time of solving the test problem with an unfamiliar tight solution between the enhanced- and base-set conditions, the influences of the short-term mental set on the unfamiliar tight solution were revealed, allowing examination of whether perseveration of the short-term mental set was independent of the situation similarity between the practice problems and the test problem.

We assumed that the short-term mental set would be formed and strengthened after repeatedly solving several similar practice problems using the loose solution and would negatively influence solving of the test problem with an unfamiliar tight solution. The accuracy rates and response times associated with the tight solution for the test problem would be worse in the enhanced-set condition versus the base-set condition regardless of whether the test problem situation was similar to the practice problems.

Experiment 1

Participants.

Thirty-two paid participants (18 males between the ages of 18 and 22 years; mean age 20.11 ± 1.31 years) recruited from the Jiangxi Normal University participated in the task as paid volunteers. They were all native Chinese speakers and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Before the experiment, all participants signed the informed consent form approved by the institutional review board of the Jiangxi Normal University.

Tasks, Design, and Procedure

Example of the Chinese character decomposition task in this study.

Two conditions were created in this study, namely, the base-set and enhanced-set conditions, and their presentation sequences were random. In the base-set condition, the participants were asked to perform a practice problem that could be solved only by a loose solution (decompose and remove radicals), followed by a test problem that could be solved by a loose solution and also a tight solution (decompose and remove strokes). In the enhanced-set condition, the participants were asked to continuously perform 5∼8 similar practice problems, followed by one test problem; the range was designed to prevent participants from anticipating. In both conditions, the test problem situation was similar to the practice problems in which the character to be decomposed had a radical element that was closely associated with the loose solution. In total, 24 practice problems and 24 test problems were included in the base-set condition, and 156 practice problems and 24 test problems were included in the enhanced-set condition. Each problem was a Chinese character that was highly familiar to the participants, who were native Chinese speakers.

The time course of each trial is shown below (see Figure ​ Figure2). 2 ). After a period of 500∼800 ms that was designed to reduce expectation, the character to be decomposed appeared in the center of the screen for up to 3,000 ms. During this period, the participants were instructed to consider the answers one by one and to press a response key with the right index finger as soon as they determined an answer. Then, an input box appeared on the screen, and the participants were given an unlimited period of time to enter their answers using a keyboard and then press the “Enter” key to complete the task. Subsequently, the same character again appeared in the center of the screen for up to 10,000 ms minus the reaction time for the first encounter, and the participants were given an unlimited amount of time to enter their answers using a keyboard, or the participants could press the “Space” key to end the trial if they believed that no other answer was possible. Thus, both the character to be decomposed and the answer input box appeared twice since two answers were required for the test problem, and the same procedure was applied to the practice problem for coherence. After the participants finished a practice problem and a test problem or 5∼8 practice problems and a test problem in the set, a 3∼5-s interval was included as a break. The random length was designed to reduce the impact of expectation and preparation.

Example of the experimental trial timeline in Experiment 1.

To demonstrate the influences of the short-term mental set on chunk decomposition, we compared the response times and accuracy rates of the loose solution for both the practice and test problems and the tight solution for the test problem between the enhanced-set condition and the base-set condition.

For the accuracy rate, a 2 (condition: base-set, enhanced-set) × 2 (solution: loose, tight) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant effects of the condition [ F (1,31) = 6.58, p = 0.015, η 2 = 0.18], the solution [ F (1,31) = 940.16, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.97], and the interaction effect [ F (1,31) = 11.00, p = 0.002, η 2 = 0.26]. The participants achieved fewer correct responses for the tight solution in the test task in the enhanced-set condition than in the base-set condition [ t (31) = 9.42, p = 0.004], but no significant differences emerged between the enhanced-set condition and the base-set condition for the loose solution [ t (31) = 0.24, p = 0.63] (Figure ​ (Figure3 3 ).

The panel shows the mean accuracy rate and the mean response times for loose and tight solutions for character decomposition in both the base-set and enhanced-set conditions in Experiment 1. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The asterisks indicate significant differences between conditions ( ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001).

For the mean response times, a 2 (condition: base-set, enhanced-set) × 2 (solution: loose, tight) repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant effects of the condition [ F (1,31) = 7.75, p = 0.009, η 2 = 0.20], the solution [ F (1,31) = 203.25, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.87] and the interaction effect [ F (1,31) = 5.67, p = 0.024, η 2 = 0.16]. The reaction times of the tight-level solution for the test task were longer in the enhanced-set condition than those in the base-set condition [ t (31) = 6.87, p = 0.013], but no difference in response time for the loose solution for both tasks was found in either condition [ t (31) = 0.74, p = 0.40] (Figure ​ (Figure3 3 ).

Experiment 2

Twenty-eight participants (20 males between the ages of 18 and 22 years; mean age 19.93 ± 1.36 years) recruited from the Jiangxi Normal University participated in the task as paid volunteers. They were all native Chinese speakers and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Before the experiment, all participants signed the informed consent forms approved by the institutional review board of the Jiangxi Normal University.

The time course for each trial was as follows (see Figure ​ Figure4). 4 ). After 500∼800 ms, the character to be decomposed appeared in the center of the screen for up to 10,000 ms. During this period, the participants were asked to press a response key with the right index finger as soon as they determined an answer. Subsequently, an input box appeared on the screen, and the participants were given an unlimited amount of time to enter their answers using a keyboard and press the “Enter” key to complete the task. After the participants finished a practice problem and a test problem or 5∼8 practice problems and a test problem in the set, a 3∼5-s interval was provided as a break.

Example of the experimental trial timeline in Experiment 2.

To demonstrate the influences of the short-term mental set on chunk decomposition, we compared the response times and accuracy rates of the loose solution for all practice problems and the tight solution for the test problem between the enhanced-set condition and the base-set condition.

For the accuracy rate, a 2 (condition: base-set, enhanced-set) × 2 (solution: loose, tight) repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant effects of the solution [ F (1,27) = 107.41, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.80], indicating that the participants had fewer correct responses for the tight solution versus the loose solution, whereas the main effects of the condition [ F (1,27) = 0.02, p = 0.89, η 2 = 0.001] and the interaction effect [ F (1,27) = 0.06, p = 0.81, η 2 = 0.002] were not significant (Figure ​ (Figure5 5 ).

The panel shows the mean accuracy rate and the mean response times for the practice and test problems in both the base-set and enhanced-set conditions in Experiment 2. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The asterisks indicate significant differences between conditions ( ∗∗∗ p < 0.001).

For the mean response times, a 2 (condition: base-set, enhanced-set) × 2 (solution: loose, tight) repeated-measures ANOVA showed the significant effects of the condition [ F (1,27) = 16.12, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.37], the solution [ F (1,27) = 371.25, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.93] and the interaction effect [ F (1,27) = 29.50, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.52]. The reaction times of the tight solution were longer in the enhanced-set condition than those in the base-set condition [ t (27) = 23.85, p < 0.001], but no difference in response time for the loose solution was found between the two conditions [ t (27) = 1.18, p = 0.29] (Figure ​ (Figure5 5 ).

To reveal the boundary conditions of perseveration of the short-term mental set, this study adopted a Chinese character decomposition task. Participants were asked to perform a practice problem that could be solved by a familiar loose solution followed by a test problem, or they were asked to repeatedly perform 5–8 practice problems followed by a test problem; the former task is the base-set condition, and the latter task is the enhanced-set condition. The test problem situation was similar to the practice problem, which included a character with a radical structure, and could be solved by the reinforced loose solution and also an unfamiliar tight solution (Experiment 1), or the situation was different from the practice problem, which included a character without a radical structure, and could only be solved using an unfamiliar tight solution (Experiment 2). The results showed that the participants’ performance in solving the test problems with the unfamiliar tight solution was worse in the enhanced-set condition than in the base-set condition regardless of whether the test problem situation was similar to the practice problems.

For the 2-solution test problem in both the base- and enhanced-set conditions of Experiment 1, all of the participants selected the loose solution as their first choice even though no cue toward a loose or tight solution was provided in the experimental instructions, and the probability of using the loose solution was much higher than that of using the tight solution. This result was consistent with the chunk decomposition hypothesis that chunk decomposition begins with loose chunks, and that the probability that a chunk will be decomposed is inversely proportional to the tightness of the chunk ( Knoblich et al., 1999 ). The processing tendency toward loose chunk decomposition likely reflected the long-term mental set, which originated from previous knowledge about chunks. In particular, Chinese characters are composed of radicals, which are composed of strokes. Because radicals are meaningful elements and can be viewed as independent units, people likely consider removing radicals as the first choice in the process of chunk decomposition when a radical structure is present in the characters ( Luo and Knoblich, 2007 ; Luo et al., 2008 ). In other words, previous knowledge biased attention toward the radical structure and the corresponding loose solution, which was likely prioritized first when performing the Chinese characters decomposition task.

Compared with the base-set condition of Experiment 1, the participants had a lower probability of identifying and required more time to search for the tight solution for the test problem in the enhanced-set condition, reflecting the negative influence of the short-term mental set. As a temporary by-product of procedural learning, the short-term mental set was formed and strengthened with repeated practice of a particular solution. The solution that was satisfactory for all of the practice problems resulted in gradual realization of mechanization, which was likely automatically activated in the problem situation that was similar with prior practice problems ( Lovett and Anderson, 1996 ). Accordingly, problem solvers become faster at solving similar consecutive problems ( Ollinger et al., 2008 ). In this study, performance in solving the practice problem did not increase in the enhanced-set condition compared with the base-set condition, likely because of a ceiling effect. More importantly, performance in solving the test problem by the unfamiliar tight solution was decreased in the enhanced-set condition versus the base-set condition. Two possible mechanisms may underlie this phenomenon. First, reinforced practice enhanced the attentional bias toward the loose solution since a radical structure was present in the test problem situation and in the practice problems. Second, a particular solution realizing mechanization indicates that cognitive and neural adaptation occurred, and the participants may have lost the flexibility to shift their attention to search for other solutions.

For the 1-solution test problem in both conditions of Experiment 2, no radical element was present for retrieval of the loose solution, and the loose solution did not interfere with the tight solution. Therefore, the accuracy rate of solving the test problem with an unfamiliar tight solution was relatively high. Compared with the base-set condition, the participants showed poorer performance in solving the test problem by the tight solution after repeatedly solving the practice problems by the loose solution. This result revealed that the short-term mental set persisted in a different problem situation even though no attentional bias toward the radical structure and its corresponding loose solution likely occurred. The only possible explanation is that mechanization of a particular solution decreased cognitive flexibility, which likely increased the switching costs from the practiced problems to a totally different problem. Therefore, perseveration of the short-term mental set was independent of the similarity between the problem situations. Regardless of whether the next problem situation is similar to the previously practiced problems, problem solving will be hindered when people try to explore alternative solutions rather than using the repeatedly reinforced solution.

Although the formation mechanisms of the long-term mental set and the short-term mental set are completely different, these two kinds of fixation likely occur at the same time. In particular, the short-term mental set can be formed and strengthened on the basis of the long-term mental set. As in this study, the short-term mental set of chunk decomposition was formed and strengthened after the participants repeatedly solved several practice problems with the loose solution, which was driven by the long-term mental set originating from previous knowledge about Chinese character chunks. Then, when the next problem situation was similar to the previously practiced problems, influences from both the long-term mental set and also the short-term mental set manifested. The former set likely decreased the accuracy rate of solving the test problem with the tight solution due to an attentional bias toward the familiar loose solution, whereas the latter set likely increased the response times of solving the test problem with the tight solution since cognitive flexibility was lost after a particular process realizing mechanization. Therefore, both the accuracy and the response time in solving the test problem with an alternative solution were worse in the enhanced-set condition than those in the base-set condition (in Experiment 1). If the next problem situation was not similar to the previously practiced situation, then the influence from the short-term mental set leads to cognitive inflexibility, which likely affected performance on the switching task. Consequently, the participants spent considerably more time searching for and executing the solution in the enhanced-set condition versus the base-set condition (in Experiment 2). The different influences of the test problem on performance in the two experiments also demonstrated the differences in perseveration of the long-term mental set and the short-term mental set.

In sum, the short-term mental set that was formed and strengthened by repeated reinforcement of a particular solution to solve a set of similar practice problems not only likely increased the attentional bias toward the familiar solution when the test problem situation was similar to the practice problems but also likely decreased cognitive flexibility and increased the switching costs from the practice problems to a totally different test problem. Perseveration of the short-term mental set was independent of the similarity between problem situations. Therefore, the short-term mental set was different from the long-term mental set since the latter can only be induced when a similar situation activates previous knowledge. This study largely broadens our general understanding of the mental set and not only distinguished two types of mental sets on the basis of the forming processes but also revealed the differences in the necessary conditions for perseveration. In future research, the neurocognitive mechanism underlying the two types of fixation should be further investigated.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Norms for human behavior experiments in Jiangxi Normal University with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the Jiangxi Normal University.

Author Contributions

FH and ST designed the experiments. ST collected and analyzed the data. FH, ST, and ZH wrote the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This work was supported by funding programs from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 31700956 and 31860278), a project funded by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 2018M632598 and 2018T110657), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi, China (Grant No. 20181BAB214010), and the Science and Technology Research Project of the Educational Department in Jiangxi Province, China (Grant No. GJJ160343).

• Bilalić M., McLeod P. (2014). Why good thoughts block better ones. Sci. Am. 310 74–79. 10.1038/scientificamerican0314-74 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bilalić M., McLeod P., Gobet F. (2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: the mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition 108 652–661. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bilalić M., McLeod P., Gobet F. (2010). The mechanism of the Einstellung (set) effect: a pervasive source of cognitive bias. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19 111–115. 10.1177/0963721410363571 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chi R. P., Snyder A. W. (2011). Facilitate insight by non-invasive brain stimulation. PLoS One 6 : e16655 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0016655 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis J. J., Reingold E. M. (2014). The einstellung effect in anagram problem solving: evidence from eye movements. Front. Psychol. 5 : 679 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00679 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang F., Fan J., Luo J. (2015). Neural basis of novelty and appropriateness in processing of creative chunk decomposition. Neuroimage 113 122–132. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.030 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knoblich G., Ohlsson S., Haider H., Rhenius D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. J. Exp. Psychol. 25 1534–1555. 10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1534 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knoblich G., Ohlsson S., Raney G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 29 1000–1009. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.08.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovett M. C., Anderson J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving: combined influences on operator selection. Cognit. Psychol. 31 168–217. 10.1006/cogp.1996.0016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luchins A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving – The effect of Einstellung. Psychol. Monogr. 54 i–95. 10.1037/h0093502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luchins A. S., Luchins E. H. (1969). Einstellung effect and group problem solving. J. Soc. Psychol. 77 79–89. 10.1080/00224545.1969.9919848 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo J., Knoblich G. (2007). Studying insight problem solving with neuroscientific methods. Methods 42 77–86. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo J., Knoblich G., Lin C. (2008). “ Neural correlates of insight phenomena ,” in Neural Correlates of Thinking , eds Kraft E., Guly B.ás, and E. Pöppel (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag), 253–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neroni M. A., Vasconcelos L. A., Crilly N. (2017). Computer-based ’mental set’ tasks: an alternative approach to studying design fixation. J. Mech. Design 139 : 071102 10.1115/1.4036562 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ohlsson S. (1992). Information-Processing Explanations of Insight and Related Phenomena. Advances in the Psychology of Thinking. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ollinger M., Jones G., Knoblich G. (2008). Investigating the effect of mental set on insight problem solving. Exp. Psychol. 55 270–282. 10.1027/1618-3169.55.4.269 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ricks T. R., Turleyames K. J., Wiley J. (2007). Effects of working memory capacity on mental set due to domain knowledge. Mem. Cogn. 35 1456–1462. 10.3758/BF03193615 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schultz P., Searleman A. (2002). Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 128 165–207. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheridan H., Reingold E. M. (2013). The mechanisms and boundary conditions of the einstellung effect in chess: evidence from eye movements. PLoS One 8 : e75796 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0075796 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang X., Pang J., Nie Q. Y., Conci M., Luo J., Luo J. (2016). Probing the cognitive mechanism of mental representational change during chunk decomposition: a parametric fmri study. Cereb. Cortex 26 2991–2999. 10.1093/cercor/bhv113 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiley J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: the effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 26 716–730. 10.3758/BF03211392 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu L., Knoblich G., Luo J. (2013). The role of chunk tightness and chunk familiarity in problem solving: evidence from ERPs and fMRI. Hum. Brain Mapp. 34 1173–1186. 10.1002/hbm.21501 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu X., He M., Zhou Y., Xiao J., Luo J. (2017). Decomposing a chunk into its elements and reorganizing them as a new chunk: the two different sub-processes underlying insightful chunk decomposition. Front. Psychol. 8 : 2001 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02001 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Z., Yang K., Warren C. M., Zhao G., Li P., Lei Y., et al. (2015). The influence of element type and crossed relation on the difficulty of chunk decomposition. Front. Psychol. 6 : 1025 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01025 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thinking and Intelligence

Pitfalls to Problem Solving

Learning objectives.

• Explain some common roadblocks to effective problem solving

Not all problems are successfully solved, however. What challenges stop us from successfully solving a problem? Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Imagine a person in a room that has four doorways. One doorway that has always been open in the past is now locked. The person, accustomed to exiting the room by that particular doorway, keeps trying to get out through the same doorway even though the other three doorways are open. The person is stuck—but she just needs to go to another doorway, instead of trying to get out through the locked doorway. A mental set is where you persist in approaching a problem in a way that has worked in the past but is clearly not working now.  Functional fixedness is a type of mental set where you cannot perceive an object being used for something other than what it was designed for. During the Apollo 13 mission to the moon, NASA engineers at Mission Control had to overcome functional fixedness to save the lives of the astronauts aboard the spacecraft. An explosion in a module of the spacecraft damaged multiple systems. The astronauts were in danger of being poisoned by rising levels of carbon dioxide because of problems with the carbon dioxide filters. The engineers found a way for the astronauts to use spare plastic bags, tape, and air hoses to create a makeshift air filter, which saved the lives of the astronauts.

Link to Learning

Check out this Apollo 13 scene where the group of NASA engineers are given the task of overcoming functional fixedness.

Researchers have investigated whether functional fixedness is affected by culture. In one experiment, individuals from the Shuar group in Ecuador were asked to use an object for a purpose other than that for which the object was originally intended. For example, the participants were told a story about a bear and a rabbit that were separated by a river and asked to select among various objects, including a spoon, a cup, erasers, and so on, to help the animals. The spoon was the only object long enough to span the imaginary river, but if the spoon was presented in a way that reflected its normal usage, it took participants longer to choose the spoon to solve the problem. (German & Barrett, 2005). The researchers wanted to know if exposure to highly specialized tools, as occurs with individuals in industrialized nations, affects their ability to transcend functional fixedness. It was determined that functional fixedness is experienced in both industrialized and nonindustrialized cultures (German & Barrett, 2005).

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. Sometimes, however, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the $2,000 home? Why would the realtor show you the run-down houses and the nice house? The realtor may be challenging your anchoring bias. An anchoring bias occurs when you focus on one piece of information when making a decision or solving a problem. In this case, you’re so focused on the amount of money you are willing to spend that you may not recognize what kinds of houses are available at that price point.

The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms your existing beliefs. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. This bias proves that first impressions do matter and that we tend to look for information to confirm our initial judgments of others.

You can view the transcript for “Confirmation Bias: Your Brain is So Judgmental” here (opens in new window) .

Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Representative bias describes a faulty way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something; for example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.

Finally, the availability heuristic is a heuristic in which you make a decision based on an example, information, or recent experience that is that readily available to you, even though it may not be the best example to inform your decision . To use a common example, would you guess there are more murders or more suicides in America each year? When asked, most people would guess there are more murders. In truth, there are twice as many suicides as there are murders each year. However, murders seem more common because we hear a lot more about murders on an average day. Unless someone we know or someone famous takes their own life, it does not make the news. Murders, on the other hand, we see in the news every day. This leads to the erroneous assumption that the easier it is to think of instances of something, the more often that thing occurs.

Watch the following video for an example of the availability heuristic.

You can view the transcript for “Availability Heuristic: Are Planes More Dangerous Than Cars?” here (opens in new window) .

Biases tend to “preserve that which is already established—to maintain our preexisting knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and hypotheses” (Aronson, 1995; Kahneman, 2011). These biases are summarized in Table 2 below.

Learn more about heuristics and common biases through the article, “ 8 Common Thinking Mistakes Our Brains Make Every Day and How to Prevent Them ” by  Belle Beth Cooper.

You can also watch this clever music video explaining these and other cognitive biases.

Think It Over

Which type of bias do you recognize in your own decision making processes? How has this bias affected how you’ve made decisions in the past and how can you use your awareness of it to improve your decisions making skills in the future?

CC licensed content, Original

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

CC licensed content, Shared previously

• Problem Solving. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/7-3-problem-solving . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• More information on heuristics. Authored by : Dr. Scott Roberts, Dr. Ryan Curtis, Samantha Levy, and Dr. Dylan Selterman. Provided by : University of Maryland. Located at : http://openpsyc.blogspot.com/2014/07/heuristics.html . Project : OpenPSYC. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

continually using an old solution to a problem without results

inability to see an object as useful for any other use other than the one for which it was intended

faulty heuristic in which you fixate on a single aspect of a problem to find a solution

seeking out information that supports our stereotypes while ignoring information that is inconsistent with our stereotypes

belief that the event just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t

faulty heuristic in which you stereotype someone or something without a valid basis for your judgment

faulty heuristic in which you make a decision based on information readily available to you

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

7.3 Problem Solving

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe problem solving strategies
• Define algorithm and heuristic
• Explain some common roadblocks to effective problem solving and decision making

People face problems every day—usually, multiple problems throughout the day. Sometimes these problems are straightforward: To double a recipe for pizza dough, for example, all that is required is that each ingredient in the recipe be doubled. Sometimes, however, the problems we encounter are more complex. For example, say you have a work deadline, and you must mail a printed copy of a report to your supervisor by the end of the business day. The report is time-sensitive and must be sent overnight. You finished the report last night, but your printer will not work today. What should you do? First, you need to identify the problem and then apply a strategy for solving the problem.

Problem-Solving Strategies

When you are presented with a problem—whether it is a complex mathematical problem or a broken printer, how do you solve it? Before finding a solution to the problem, the problem must first be clearly identified. After that, one of many problem solving strategies can be applied, hopefully resulting in a solution.

A problem-solving strategy is a plan of action used to find a solution. Different strategies have different action plans associated with them ( Table 7.2 ). For example, a well-known strategy is trial and error . The old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” describes trial and error. In terms of your broken printer, you could try checking the ink levels, and if that doesn’t work, you could check to make sure the paper tray isn’t jammed. Or maybe the printer isn’t actually connected to your laptop. When using trial and error, you would continue to try different solutions until you solved your problem. Although trial and error is not typically one of the most time-efficient strategies, it is a commonly used one.

Another type of strategy is an algorithm. An algorithm is a problem-solving formula that provides you with step-by-step instructions used to achieve a desired outcome (Kahneman, 2011). You can think of an algorithm as a recipe with highly detailed instructions that produce the same result every time they are performed. Algorithms are used frequently in our everyday lives, especially in computer science. When you run a search on the Internet, search engines like Google use algorithms to decide which entries will appear first in your list of results. Facebook also uses algorithms to decide which posts to display on your newsfeed. Can you identify other situations in which algorithms are used?

A heuristic is another type of problem solving strategy. While an algorithm must be followed exactly to produce a correct result, a heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. A “rule of thumb” is an example of a heuristic. Such a rule saves the person time and energy when making a decision, but despite its time-saving characteristics, it is not always the best method for making a rational decision. Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, but the impulse to use a heuristic occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):

• When one is faced with too much information
• When the time to make a decision is limited
• When the decision to be made is unimportant
• When there is access to very little information to use in making the decision
• When an appropriate heuristic happens to come to mind in the same moment

Working backwards is a useful heuristic in which you begin solving the problem by focusing on the end result. Consider this example: You live in Washington, D.C. and have been invited to a wedding at 4 PM on Saturday in Philadelphia. Knowing that Interstate 95 tends to back up any day of the week, you need to plan your route and time your departure accordingly. If you want to be at the wedding service by 3:30 PM, and it takes 2.5 hours to get to Philadelphia without traffic, what time should you leave your house? You use the working backwards heuristic to plan the events of your day on a regular basis, probably without even thinking about it.

Another useful heuristic is the practice of accomplishing a large goal or task by breaking it into a series of smaller steps. Students often use this common method to complete a large research project or long essay for school. For example, students typically brainstorm, develop a thesis or main topic, research the chosen topic, organize their information into an outline, write a rough draft, revise and edit the rough draft, develop a final draft, organize the references list, and proofread their work before turning in the project. The large task becomes less overwhelming when it is broken down into a series of small steps.

Everyday Connection

Solving puzzles.

Problem-solving abilities can improve with practice. Many people challenge themselves every day with puzzles and other mental exercises to sharpen their problem-solving skills. Sudoku puzzles appear daily in most newspapers. Typically, a sudoku puzzle is a 9×9 grid. The simple sudoku below ( Figure 7.7 ) is a 4×4 grid. To solve the puzzle, fill in the empty boxes with a single digit: 1, 2, 3, or 4. Here are the rules: The numbers must total 10 in each bolded box, each row, and each column; however, each digit can only appear once in a bolded box, row, and column. Time yourself as you solve this puzzle and compare your time with a classmate.

Here is another popular type of puzzle ( Figure 7.8 ) that challenges your spatial reasoning skills. Connect all nine dots with four connecting straight lines without lifting your pencil from the paper:

Take a look at the “Puzzling Scales” logic puzzle below ( Figure 7.9 ). Sam Loyd, a well-known puzzle master, created and refined countless puzzles throughout his lifetime (Cyclopedia of Puzzles, n.d.).

Pitfalls to Problem Solving

Not all problems are successfully solved, however. What challenges stop us from successfully solving a problem? Imagine a person in a room that has four doorways. One doorway that has always been open in the past is now locked. The person, accustomed to exiting the room by that particular doorway, keeps trying to get out through the same doorway even though the other three doorways are open. The person is stuck—but they just need to go to another doorway, instead of trying to get out through the locked doorway. A mental set is where you persist in approaching a problem in a way that has worked in the past but is clearly not working now.

Functional fixedness is a type of mental set where you cannot perceive an object being used for something other than what it was designed for. Duncker (1945) conducted foundational research on functional fixedness. He created an experiment in which participants were given a candle, a book of matches, and a box of thumbtacks. They were instructed to use those items to attach the candle to the wall so that it did not drip wax onto the table below. Participants had to use functional fixedness to overcome the problem ( Figure 7.10 ). During the Apollo 13 mission to the moon, NASA engineers at Mission Control had to overcome functional fixedness to save the lives of the astronauts aboard the spacecraft. An explosion in a module of the spacecraft damaged multiple systems. The astronauts were in danger of being poisoned by rising levels of carbon dioxide because of problems with the carbon dioxide filters. The engineers found a way for the astronauts to use spare plastic bags, tape, and air hoses to create a makeshift air filter, which saved the lives of the astronauts.

Link to Learning

Check out this Apollo 13 scene about NASA engineers overcoming functional fixedness to learn more.

Researchers have investigated whether functional fixedness is affected by culture. In one experiment, individuals from the Shuar group in Ecuador were asked to use an object for a purpose other than that for which the object was originally intended. For example, the participants were told a story about a bear and a rabbit that were separated by a river and asked to select among various objects, including a spoon, a cup, erasers, and so on, to help the animals. The spoon was the only object long enough to span the imaginary river, but if the spoon was presented in a way that reflected its normal usage, it took participants longer to choose the spoon to solve the problem. (German & Barrett, 2005). The researchers wanted to know if exposure to highly specialized tools, as occurs with individuals in industrialized nations, affects their ability to transcend functional fixedness. It was determined that functional fixedness is experienced in both industrialized and nonindustrialized cultures (German & Barrett, 2005).

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. Sometimes, however, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the $2,000 home? Why would the realtor show you the run-down houses and the nice house? The realtor may be challenging your anchoring bias. An anchoring bias occurs when you focus on one piece of information when making a decision or solving a problem. In this case, you’re so focused on the amount of money you are willing to spend that you may not recognize what kinds of houses are available at that price point.

The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms your existing beliefs. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Representative bias describes a faulty way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something; for example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.

Finally, the availability heuristic is a heuristic in which you make a decision based on an example, information, or recent experience that is that readily available to you, even though it may not be the best example to inform your decision . Biases tend to “preserve that which is already established—to maintain our preexisting knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and hypotheses” (Aronson, 1995; Kahneman, 2011). These biases are summarized in Table 7.3 .

Watch this teacher-made music video about cognitive biases to learn more.

Were you able to determine how many marbles are needed to balance the scales in Figure 7.9 ? You need nine. Were you able to solve the problems in Figure 7.7 and Figure 7.8 ? Here are the answers ( Figure 7.11 ).

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/7-3-problem-solving

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Clinical psychology

• Anxiety disorders
• Feeding and eating disorders
• Mood disorders
• Neuro-developmental disorders
• Personality disorders
• Affirmations
• Cover Letters
• Relationships
• Resignation & Leave letters

Psychotherapy

Personality.

Table of Contents

Mental set psychology definition (A Brief Guide)

As a BetterHelp affiliate, we may receive compensation from BetterHelp if you purchase products or services through the links provided.

The Optimistminds editorial team is made up of psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health professionals. Each article is written by a team member with exposure to and experience in the subject matter.  The article then gets reviewed by a more senior editorial member. This is someone with extensive knowledge of the subject matter and highly cited published material.

In this guide, we will discuss “Mental set psychology definition” and why mental sets make it difficult to solve problems. Also, we will discuss a specific type of mental set called functional fixedness and some useful steps when approaching and solving a problem.

Mental set psychology definition

The definition of mental set in psychology is the tendency our brain has to stick with the most familiar solution to a problem ignoring all the other alternatives. This tendency is normally and likely driven by previous experiences or knowledge (long-term mental set) or could also be a temporary by-product of procedural training (short-term mental set).

This tendency of choosing the most familiar or evident solution to a certain problem can also be an automatic process .

Moreover, if we want a more ‘technical’ definition, according to the American Psychological Dictionary, mental set is:

“A temporary readiness to perform certain psychological functions that influences the response to a situation or stimulus, such as the tendency to apply a previously successful technique in solving a new problem. It is often determined by instructions but need not be. Essentially synonymous with the older term Einstellung, mental set is the embodiment of the earlier concepts of Aufgabe and determining tendency.”

The meaning of the word ‘mental set’ is not only associated with fixating on a strategy that has worked before or that normally works to solve a particular problem, there is more to it. The Encyclopedia Britannica indicates how a mental set is an ‘obstacle’ to effective thinking alongside functional fixedness, stereotypes, and negative transfer. Concepts that we will see more in depth later on. 

As human beings we have this unconscious tendency to approach problems in a particular way and if we think about it for a minute or two, we might find many examples. Believe it or not our brain is working non-stop solving problems all day, from ‘What should I wear today?’ to ‘Where did I put the keys of the car’ to ‘ I am running late for work, what is the best route at this time?’.

Why do mental sets make it difficult to solve problems?

When we face a problem that we need to solve, our brain often uses solutions that have worked previously. On occasion, this can be very useful because it allows us to quickly come up with solutions and solved problems. However, getting used to solving problems the same way every time can make it difficult to find other strategies or new ways of solving problems. 

According to Kendra Cherry,  “These mental sets can sometimes lead to rigid thinking and can create difficulties in the problem-solving process. While in many cases we can use our past experiences to help solve the issues we face, it can make it difficult to see novel or creative ways of fixing current problems.”

For example, let’s think about a problem or situation where you have to study for a test. What you normally do is read the book and learn everything by heart because that is how you have been passing the tests for all of your exams but what if instead of learning everything by memory you had to face a different type of test, one you didn’t actually prepare for like analysing and describing cases and what would you do in that scenario. Here, you would struggle a lot because your experience has shown you that reading from the books and learning everything by memory was the correct way to go so you didn’t consider other options.

Functional fixedness: A type of mental set

If you remember, we talked about the ‘obstacles’ to effective thinking such as functional fixedness. This is considered an specific type of mental set which involves being only able to see solutions using objects as they are originally meant to work.  

For instance, let’s talk about one of the most common and useful examples. Think about a coin for a minute and you will immediately associate the use of the coin with being used as currency to buy things you need or want. Imagine if every time you saw a coin you had to figure out what it was and what it is used for as if it was the first time you encountered a coin. 

However, we are very fortunate because our minds are designed in a way we get to make shortcuts and memories from our experiences in order to retrieve this information later which tells us exactly what a coin is and what we can use it for. Mental shortcuts are also known by the term heuristics in psychology, however, sometimes heuristics can lead to cognitive bias.

Imagine you are sitting down in your office at work and you noticed there is a loose screw in your desk. You don’t have a screwdriver at hand and calling maintenance can take ages, so what can you do? If you would like to get a screwdriver or wait for maintenance, that is your call but there is something else you can do, what is it? You may wonder. Well, you can use the coin from our example to tighten the screw.  Now, we have thought of other ways to use a coin and solve the problem. 

Steps to problem-solving

Sometimes we are too overwhelmed by problems that it is not clear what we should do or is not as easy to come up with the solution, especially when we have tried what usually works best or worked in the past. We normally don’t pay much attention to the steps involved in problem solving but here we will see one by one:

• Identifying the problem. The more specific we are when identifying the problem the better since it tells us exactly where to begin.
• Problem definition. In this step we need to determine the nature of the problem and confront it. 
• Resource allocation. After we have defined our problem, we need to determine the kind and extent of resources we will dedicate to our preferred choice.
• Problem representation. Here, we need to organize the information needed to solve the problem. 
• Strategy construction. Having determined our criteria, we need to decide how to combine or give priority to one of them. 
• Monitoring. In this step, we assess whether our problem is being solved as intended or if the possible solution needs to get modified or changed. 
• Evaluation. Here we evaluate whether the problem was solved successfully or we may need to go back to the beginning and start all over again until we are satisfied.  

Other ways of solving a problem

The problem solving strategy we just mentioned is not the only way. According to ‘Lumen Learning’ here are other ways of approaching and solving a problem:

• Abstraction: solving the problem in a model of the system before applying it to the real system.
• Analogy: using a solution for a similar problem.
• Brainstorming: suggesting a large number of solutions and developing them until the best is found.
• Divide and conquer: breaking down a large, complex problem into smaller, solvable problems.
• Hypothesis testing: assuming a possible explanation to the problem and trying to prove (or, in some contexts, disprove) the assumption.
• Lateral thinking: approaching solutions indirectly and creatively.
• Means-ends analysis: choosing an action at each step to move closer to the goal.
• Morphological analysis: assessing the output and interactions of an entire system.
• Proof: try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. The point where the proof fails will be the starting point for solving it.
• Reduction: transforming the problem into another problem for which solutions exist.
• Root-cause analysis: identifying the cause of a problem.
• Trial and error: testing possible solutions until the right one is found.

Why is this blog about Mental set psychology definition important?

Understanding what mental sets are and how they seem to become an obstacle in effective thinking is very important. Sometimes we ask ourselves why we keep doing the same thing over and over again without no positive results or how we used to handle things a specific way now it seems obsolete. Here we need to use cognitive flexibility to find different solutions to all sorts of problems.

There are many ways of solving a problem and we have mentioned a few. Think about a problem you may have and start following the steps to see how many alternatives you have for the same problem and how to start incorporating this on a daily basis.

Please feel free to leave any comments or thoughts about the content of this article!

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Mental set psychology definition

What is mental set according to psychology.

A mental set according to psychology is the tendency to only see solutions that have worked previously, in the past. This type of fixed way of thinking can make it difficult to come up with new solutions and can stop the problem-solving process. Because of the mental set you may have, it makes it very difficult for you to see a simpler solution to a problem.

How does mental set affect people’s perception?

Mental sets can affect people’s perception where they tend to interpret situations only seeing what they want to see. A perceptual set or perceptual expectancy, makes an individual to be predisposed to perceive things a certain way. 

Why are mental sets used by humans?

Mental sets are used by humans because they allow previous knowledge to be used again in certain situations where we could use it to our advantage. However, sometimes the same previous knowledge applied to a new situation won’t guarantee being right or having leverage. 

What is the difference between functional Fixedness and mental set?

The difference between functional fixedness and mental set is that the first is when the intended purpose of an object hinders a person’s ability to see its potential other uses and the second is related to the unconscious tendency to approach a problem in a particula (known or familiar) way.

What is an example of functional Fixedness in psychology?

An example of functional fixedness in psychology is when we see an object such as a coin and we immediately think about how coins are meant to be used to buy things. However, if one day you face the problem of having to tighten a screw but you don’t have a screwdriver, only a coin. Functional fixedness will tell you how the coin is only meant to be used to buy or get things but the truth is you could have solved your problem using that same coin as a screwdriver. 

References 

Dictionary.apa.org: “Mental Set”

Cherry, K. (2020, May.) How Mental Sets Prohibit Seeing Solutions to Problems. Retrieved from verywellmind.com.

Courses.lumenlearning.com: “Problem Solving”

W. Edgar Vinacke, D.E. Berlyne and Others (See All Contributors) (2008, May.) Topic: Thought. Retrieved from britannica.com/topic/thought.

Was this helpful?

Related posts, the healing power of empathy: how a conversation with an empath psychic can help you feel better, choosing the right nicotine pouch for your daily needs, building resilience: psychological strategies for helping children cope with challenges.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

6.8: Blocks to Problem Solving

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 54768

• Mehgan Andrade and Neil Walker
• College of the Canyons

Sometimes, previous experience or familiarity can even make problem solving more difficult. This is the case whenever habitual directions get in the way of finding new directions – an effect called fixation.

Functional Fixedness

Functional fixedness concerns the solution of object-use problems. The basic idea is that when the usual way of using an object is emphasised, it will be far more difficult for a person to use that object in a novel manner. An example for this effect is the candle problem : Imagine you are given a box of matches, some candles and tacks. On the wall of the room there is a cork- board. Your task is to fix the candle to the cork-board in such a way that no wax will drop on the floor when the candle is lit. – Got an idea?

Explanation: The clue is just the following: when people are confronted with a problem

and given certain objects to solve it, it is difficult for them to figure out that they could use them in a different (not so familiar or obvious) way. In this example the box has to be recognized as a support rather than as a container.

A further example is the two-string problem: Knut is left in a room with a chair and a pair of pliers given the task to bind two strings together that are hanging from the ceiling. The problem he faces is that he can never reach both strings at a time because they are just too far away from each other. What can Knut do?

Solution: Knut has to recognize he can use the pliers in a novel function – as weight for a pendulum. He can bind them to one of the strings, push it away, hold the other string and just wait for the first one moving towards him. If necessary, Knut can even climb on the chair, but he is not that small, we suppose…

Mental Fixedness

Functional fixedness as involved in the examples above illustrates a mental set - a person’s tendency to respond to a given task in a manner based on past experience. Because Knut maps an object to a particular function he has difficulties to vary the way of use (pliers as pendulum's weight). One approach to studying fixation was to study wrong-answer verbal insight problems. It was shown that people tend to give rather an incorrect answer when failing to solve a problem than to give no answer at all.

A typical example: People are told that on a lake the area covered by water lilies doubles every 24 hours and that it takes 60 days to cover the whole lake. Then they are asked how many days it takes to cover half the lake. The typical response is '30 days' (whereas 59 days is correct).

These wrong solutions are due to an inaccurate interpretation, hence representation, of the problem. This can happen because of sloppiness (a quick shallow reading of the problemand/or weak monitoring of their efforts made to come to a solution). In this case error feedback should help people to reconsider the problem features, note the inadequacy of their first answer, and find the correct solution. If, however, people are truly fixated on their incorrect representation, being told the answer is wrong does not help. In a study made by P.I. Dallop and R.L. Dominowski in 1992 these two possibilities were contrasted. In approximately one third of the cases error feedback led to right answers, so only approximately one third of the wrong answers were due to inadequate monitoring. [6] Another approach is the study of examples with and without a preceding analogous task. In cases such like the water-jug task analogous thinking indeed leads to a correct solution, but to take a different way might make the case much simpler:

Imagine Knut again, this time he is given three jugs with different capacities and is asked to measure the required amount of water. Of course he is not allowed to use anything despite the jugs and as much water as he likes. In the first case the sizes are 127 litres, 21 litres and 3 litres while 100 litres are desired. In the second case Knut is asked to measure 18 litres from jugs of 39, 15 and three litres size.

In fact participants faced with the 100 litre task first choose a complicate way in order tosolve the second one. Others on the contrary who did not know about that complex task solved the 18 litre case by just adding three litres to 15.

Pitfalls to Problem Solving

Not all problems are successfully solved, however. What challenges stop us from successfully solving a problem? Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Imagine a person in a room that has four doorways. One doorway that has always been open in the past is now locked. The person, accustomed to exiting the room by that particular doorway, keeps trying to get out through the same doorway even though the other three doorways are open. The person is stuck—but she just needs to go to another doorway, instead of trying to get out through the locked doorway. A mental set is where you persist in approaching a problem in a way that has worked in the past but is clearly not working now. Functional fixedness is a type of mental set where you cannot perceive an object being used for something other than what it was designed for. During the Apollo 13 mission to the moon, NASA engineers at Mission Control had to overcome functional fixedness to save the lives of the astronauts aboard the spacecraft. An explosion in a module of the spacecraft damaged multiple systems. The astronauts were in danger of being poisoned by rising levels of carbon dioxide because of problems with the carbon dioxide filters. The engineers found a way for the astronauts to use spare plastic bags, tape, and air hoses to create a makeshift air filter, which saved the lives of the astronauts.

Link to Learning

Check out this Apollo 13 scene where the group of NASA engineers are given the task of overcoming functional fixedness.

Researchers have investigated whether functional fixedness is affected by culture. In one experiment, individuals from the Shuar group in Ecuador were asked to use an object for a purpose other than that for which the object was originally intended. For example, the participants were told a story about a bear and a rabbit that were separated by a river and asked to select among various objects, including a spoon, a cup, erasers, and so on, to help the animals. The spoon was the only object long enough to span the imaginary river, but if the spoon was presented in a way that reflected its normal usage, it took participants longer to choose the spoon to solve the problem. (German & Barrett, 2005). The researchers wanted to know if exposure to highly specialized tools, as occurs with individuals in industrialized nations, affects their ability to transcend functional fixedness. It was determined that functional fixedness is experienced in both industrialized and non-industrialized cultures (German & Barrett, 2005).

Common obstacles to solving problems

The example also illustrates two common problems that sometimes happen during problem solving. One of these is functional fixedness : a tendency to regard the functions of objects and ideas as fixed (German & Barrett, 2005). Over time, we get so used to one particular purpose for an object that we overlook other uses. We may think of a dictionary, for example, as necessarily something to verify spellings and definitions, but it also can function as a gift, a doorstop, or a footstool. For students working on the nine-dot matrix described in the last section, the notion of “drawing” a line was also initially fixed; they assumed it to be connecting dots but not extending lines beyond the dots. Functional fixedness sometimes is also called response set , the tendency for a person to frame or think about each problem in a series in the same way as the previous problem, even when doing so is not appropriate to later problems. In the example of the nine-dot matrix described above, students often tried one solution after another, but each solution was constrained by a set response not to extend any line beyond the matrix.

Functional fixedness and the response set are obstacles in problem representation , the way that a person understands and organizes information provided in a problem. If information is misunderstood or used inappropriately, then mistakes are likely—if indeed the problem can be solved at all. With the nine-dot matrix problem, for example, construing the instruction to draw four lines as meaning “draw four lines entirely within the matrix” means that the problem simply could not be solved. For another, consider this problem: “The number of water lilies on a lake doubles each day. Each water lily covers exactly one square foot. If it takes 100 days for the lilies to cover the lake exactly, how many days does it take for the lilies to cover exactly half of the lake?” If you think that the size of the lilies affects the solution to this problem, you have not represented the problem correctly. Information about lily size is not relevant to the solution, and only serves to distract from the truly crucial information, the fact that the lilies double their coverage each day. (The answer, incidentally, is that the lake is half covered in 99 days; can you think why?)

Investigating the effect of mental set on insight problem solving

Affiliation.

• 1 Parmenides Center for the Study of Thinking, Munich, Germany. [email protected]
• PMID: 18683624
• DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.55.4.269

Mental set is the tendency to solve certain problems in a fixed way based on previous solutions to similar problems. The moment of insight occurs when a problem cannot be solved using solution methods suggested by prior experience and the problem solver suddenly realizes that the solution requires different solution methods. Mental set and insight have often been linked together and yet no attempt thus far has systematically examined the interplay between the two. Three experiments are presented that examine the extent to which sets of noninsight and insight problems affect the subsequent solutions of insight test problems. The results indicate a subtle interplay between mental set and insight: when the set involves noninsight problems, no mental set effects are shown for the insight test problems, yet when the set involves insight problems, both facilitation and inhibition can be seen depending on the type of insight problem presented in the set. A two process model is detailed to explain these findings that combines the representational change mechanism with that of proceduralization.

Publication types

• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Mathematics
• Middle Aged
• Problem Solving*

Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving

• Published: July 1998
• Volume 26 , pages 716–730, ( 1998 )

Cite this article

• Jennifer Wiley 1  

7992 Accesses

243 Citations

15 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Experts generally solve problems in their fields more effectively than novices because their wellstructured, easily activated knowledge allows for efficient search of a solution space. But what happens when a problem requires a broad search for a solution? One concern is that subjects with a large amount of domain knowledge may actually be at a disadvantage, because their knowledge may confine them to an area of the search space in which the solution does not reside. In other words, domain knowledge may act as a mental set, promoting fixation in creative problem-solving attempts. A series of three experiments in which an adapted version of Mednick’s (1962) remote associates task was used demonstrates conditions under which domain knowledge may inhibit creative problem solving.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Similar content being viewed by others

Against a “mindless” account of perceptual expertise

The Expertise Level

Tacit knowledge.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Adelson, B. (1984). When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition , 10 , 483–495.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arkes, H. R. , & Freedman, M. R. (1984). A demonstration of the costs and benefits of expertise in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition , 12 , 84–89.

Bédard, J. (1989). Expertise in auditing: Myth or reality? Accounting, Organizations & Society , 14 , 113–131.

Bédard, J. , & Chi, M. (1992). Expertise. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 1 , 135–139.

Chase, W. G. , & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic Press.

Google Scholar  

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R. , & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chiesi, H., Spilich, G. , & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domainrelated information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior , 18 , 257–273.

de Graaff, E. (1989). A test of medical problem solving scored by nurses and doctors: The handicap of expertise. Medical Education , 23 , 381–388.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Devine, D. J. , & Kozlowski, S. (1995). Domain-specific knowledge and task characteristics in decision making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes , 64 , 294–306.

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs , 58 (Whole No. 270).

Ericsson, K. A. , & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A. , & Staszewski, J. (1989). Skilled memory and expertise: Mechanisms of exceptional performance. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 235–268). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fincher-Kiefer, R., Post, T., Greene, T. , & Voss, J. F. (1988). On the role of prior knowledge and task demands in the processing of text. Journal of Memory & Language , 27 , 416–428.

Frensch, P. A. , & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to know better? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. V, pp. 157–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Glenberg, A. M. , & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition , 15 , 84–93.

Hecht, H. , & Proffitt, D. R. (1995). The price of expertise: Effects of experience on the water-level task. Psychological Science , 6 , 90–95.

Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Thinking and managing: A verbal protocol analysis of managerial problem solving. Academy of Management Journal , 29 , 775–788.

Jansson, D. G. , & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies , 12 , 3–11.

Johnson, E. J. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 209–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lesgold, A. (1984). Acquiring expertise. In J. R. Anderson & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Essays in honor of Gordon Bower (pp. 31–60). San Francisco: Freeman.

Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs , 54 (Whole No. 248).

Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology , 12 , 181–194.

Maier, N. R. F. (1945). Reasoning in humans: III. The mechanisms of equivalent stimuli and of reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 35 , 349–360.

Marchant, G., Robinson, J., Anderson, U. , & Schadewald, M. (1991). Analogical transfer and expertise in legal reasoning. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes , 48 , 272–290.

Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review , 69 , 200–232.

Myles-Worsley, M., Johnston, W. , & Simons, M. A. (1988). The influence of expertise on X-ray image processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition , 14 , 553–557.

Patel, V. L. , & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith. (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 93–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, H. G. , & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (1993). On the origin of intermediate effects in clinical case recall. Memory & Cognition , 21 , 338–351.

Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers , 20 , 206–217.

Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N. S., Patalano, A. L. , & Yaniv, I. (1995). Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind perspective. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 65–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Shepard, R. N. , & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of threedimensional objects. Science , 171 , 691–703.

Smith, S. M. , & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology , 104 , 61–87.

Smith, S. M., & Schumacher, J. S. (1992, April). A test of transferappropriate fixation in problem solving . Paper presented at the 1992 Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.

Smith, S. M. , & Tindell, D. R. (1997). Memory blocks in word fragment completion caused by involuntary retrieval of orthographically related primes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition , 23 , 1–16.

Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.) (1995). The creative cognition approach . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B. , & Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition , 21 , 837–845.

Spilich G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. J. , & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior , 18 , 275–290

Street, R. F. (1931). A Gestalt completion task (Teacher’s College Contributions to Education, No. 481). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.

Voss, J. F., Vesonder, G. , & Spilich, H. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior , 19 , 651–667.

Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology , 27 , 1–40.

Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.) (1997). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wegner, D. M. (1989). White bears and other unwanted thoughts . New York: Viking/Penguin.

Weisberg, R.W. , & Alba, J.W. (1981). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 110 , 169–192.

Woodworth, R. , & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Yaniv, I., Meyer, D. E. , & Davidson, N. S. (1995). Dynamic memory processed in retrieving answers to questions: Recall failures, judgments of knowing, and acquisition of information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition , 21 , 1509–1521.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Jennifer Wiley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Wiley .

Additional information

This article is based on a dissertation submitted to the University of Pittsburgh in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Ph.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wiley, J. Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition 26 , 716–730 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211392

Download citation

Received : 20 February 1997

Accepted : 11 July 1997

Issue Date : July 1998

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211392

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Domain Knowledge
• Knowledge Level
• Knowledge Subject
• Neutral Trial
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research