The two experiments reported here tested two predictions concerning the sensitivity of good and poor problem solvers to superficial and structural information during online problem solving: (a) Superficial features have a greater effect on solution difficulty for poor problem solvers, whereas (b) structural features have a greater effect on solution difficulty for good problem solvers. The tests were conducted in the domain of anagram solution by manipulating or measuring several superficial and structural characteristics in this domain. The results supported both predictions. They also indicated that better problem solvers have access to structural information from the earliest stages of processing (within the first 2 s). The authors discuss the implications of their results for the types of solution strategies used by more and less competent anagram solvers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelsonB. (1981). Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programming languages.Memory & Cognition9, 422–433.
2.
ArnoldH.LeeB. (1973). Jumble #7New York: The Berkeley Publishing Group.
3.
BeilinH.HornR. (1962). Transition probability effects in anagram problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology63, 514–518.
4.
BlessingS. B.RossB. H. (1996). Content effects in problem categorization and problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition22, 792–810.
5.
ChambersS. M.ForsterK. I. (1975). Evidence for lexical access in a simultaneous matching task.Memory & Cognition3, 549–559.
6.
ChateauD.JaredD. (2003). Spelling–sound consistency effects in disyllabic word naming.Journal of Memory and Language48, 255–280.
7.
ChiM. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics.The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP. J.HoffmanR. R.New York: Cambridge University Press21–30.
8.
ChiM. T. H.FeltovichP. J.GlaserR. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science5, 121–152.
9.
CohenJ. D.MacWhinneyB.FlattM.ProvostJ. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments.Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments & Computers25, 257–271.
DominowskiR. L. (1967). Anagram solving as a function of bigram rank and word frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology75, 299–306.
12.
DominowskiR. L. (1969). The effect of pronunciation practice on anagram difficulty.Psychonomic Science16, 99–100.
13.
DominowskiR. L.DuncanC. P. (1964). Anagram solving as a function of bigram frequency.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior3, 321–325.
14.
DunbarK. (2001). The analogical paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings yet so difficult in the psychological laboratory.The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. GentnerD.HolyoakK. J.KokinovB.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press313–334.
15.
FeltovichP. J.PrietulaM. J.EricssonK. A. (2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives.The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP. J.HoffmanR. R.New York: Cambridge University Press41–67.
16.
GavurinE. I.DeVitoC. (1973). Correlation of anagram solving to transition probability and word frequency.Journal of General Psychology88, 135–140.
17.
GavurinE. I.ZangrilloR. L. (1975). Effect of bigram cues on the solution of monosyllabic and bisyllabic solution-word anagrams.Journal of General Psychology92, 225–229.
18.
GentnerD. R. (1988). Expertise in typewriting.The nature of expertise. ChiM. T. H.GlaserR.FarrM. J.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates1–21.
19.
GilhoolyK. J.JohnsonC. E. (1978). Effects of solution word attributes on anagram difficulty: A regression analysis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology30, 57–70.
20.
GoldblumN.FrostR. (1988). The crossword puzzle paradigm: The effectiveness of different word fragments as cues for the retrieval of words.Memory & Cognition16, 158–166.
21.
HardimanP. T.DufresneR.MestreJ. P. (1989). The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices.Memory & Cognition17, 627–638.
22.
HebertJ. A.RogersC. A.Jr. (1966). Anagram solution as a function of pronounceability and difficulty.Psychonomic Science4, 359–360.
23.
HolyoakK. J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: Toward third-generation theories of expertise.Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. EricssonK. A.SmithJ.New York: Cambridge University Press301–335.
24.
HumphreysG. W.EvettL. J.QuinlanP. T. (1990). Orthographic processing in visual word identification.Cognitive Psychology22, 517–560.
25.
KeilF. C.SmithW. C.SimonsD. J.LevinD. T. (1998). Two dogmas of conceptual empiricism: Implications for hybrid models of the structure of knowledge.Cognition65, 103–135.
26.
KuceraH.FrancisW. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American EnglishProvidence, RI: Brown University Press.
27.
LesgoldA.RubinsonH.FeltovichP.GlaserR.KlopferD.WangY. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing x-ray pictures.The nature of expertise. ChiM. T. H.GlaserR.FarrM. J.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates311–342.
28.
ManelisL. (1974). The effect of meaningfulness in tachistoscopic word perception.Perception & Psychophysics16, 182–192.
29.
MayznerM. S.TresseltM. E. (1962). Anagram solution times: A function of word transition probabilities.Journal of Experimental Psychology63, 510–513.
30.
MayznerM. S.TresseltM. E. (1963). Anagram solution times: A function of word length and letter position variables.The Journal of Psychology55, 469–475.
31.
MayznerM. S.TresseltM. E. (1966). Anagram solution times: A function of multiple-solution anagrams.Journal of Experimental Psychology71, 66–73.
32.
MayznerM. S.TresseltM. E.HelbockH. (1964). An exploratory study of mediational responses in anagram problem solving.The Journal of Psychology57, 263–274.
33.
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review88, 375–407.
34.
McKeithenK. B.ReitmanJ. S.RueterH. H.HirtleS. C. (1981). Knowledge organization and skill differences in computer programmers.Cognitive Psychology13, 307–325.
35.
MendelsohnG. A. (1976). An hypothesis approach to the solution of anagrams.Memory & Cognition4, 637–642.
36.
MendelsohnG. A.O'BrienA. T. (1974). The solution of anagrams: A reexamination of the effects of transition letter probabilities, letter moves, and word frequency on anagram difficulty.Memory & Cognition2, 566–574.
37.
NormanG. R.TrottA. D.BrooksL. R.SmithE. K. M. (1994). Cognitive differences in clinical reasoning related to postgraduate training.Teaching and Learning in Medicine6, 114–120.
38.
NovickL. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition14, 510–520.
39.
NovickL. R. (2001). Spatial diagrams: Key instruments in the toolbox for thought.The psychology of learning and motivation. MedinD. L.San Diego, CA: Academic Press40, 279–325.
40.
NovickL. R.CotéN. (1992). The nature of expertise in anagram solution.Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science SocietyHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates450–455.
41.
NovickL. R.ShermanS. J. (2003). On the nature of insight solutions: Evidence from skill differences in anagram solution.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology56A, 351–382.
42.
NovickL. R.ShermanS. J. (2004). Type-based bigram frequencies for five-letter words.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers36, 397–401.
43.
RiceG. A.RobinsonD. O. (1975). The role of bigram frequency in the perception of words and nonwords.Memory & Cognition3, 513–518.
44.
RonningR. R. (1965). Anagram solution times: A function of the “ruleout” factor.Journal of Experimental Psychology69, 35–39.
45.
RumelhartD. E.NormanD. A. (1982). Simulating a skilled typist: A study of skilled cognitive-motor performance.Cognitive Science6, 1–36.
46.
SalthouseT. A. (1991). Expertise as the circumvention of human processing limitations.Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. EricssonK. A.SmithJ.New York: Cambridge University Press286–300.
47.
SchianoD.CooperL. A.GlaserR.ZhangH. C. (1989). Highs are to lows as experts are to novices: Individual differences in the representation and solution of standardized figural analogies.Human Performance2, 225–248.
48.
SchneiderW. (1990). Micro Experimental LaboratoryPittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
49.
SchoenfeldA. H.HerrmannD. J. (1982). Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition8, 484–494.
50.
SeidenbergM. S.McClellandJ. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review96, 523–568.
51.
SilverE. A. (1981). Recall of mathematical problem information: Solving related problems.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education12, 54–64.
52.
SpoehrK. T.SmithE. E. (1973). The role of syllables in perceptual processing.Cognitive Psychology5, 71–89.
53.
TresseltM. E.MayznerM. S. (1965). Anagram solution times: A function of individual differences in stored digram frequencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology70, 606–610.
54.
WarrenM. W.ThomsonW. J. (1969). Anagram solution as a function of transition probabilities and solution word frequency.Psychonomic Science17, 333–334.
