Hypothesis Formation and Problem Complexity

Abstract

The present study examines the relationship between hypothesis formation and the degree of complexity of the problem which has to be solved. Ninety subjects played a simple arithmetical game with the investigator. They were divided into two groups according to the type of problem given. The hypotheses formed by the subjects in the course of the game were classified under two headings; namely, H₁, trying to form a general and comprehensive strategy on the basis of an overall evaluation of the problem; and H_II based on a more detailed logical analysis and leading to a strategy with sub-goals. Hypotheses of the first type prevailed in the simpler versions of the problem, those of the second type were more frequent in the more complicated versions. If the number of alternative strategies is small, subjects are not forced to develop an abstract formulation of the strategies, and continue to operate with concrete strategies (e.g. I always take two chips). When there are many alternative strategies, subjects are forced to use more abstract analyses of the problem which appears to involve formulation of sub-goals. The consequences of both types of hypotheses for problem solving are discussed.