Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Planning underpins the impressive flexibility of goal-directed behavior. However, even when planning, people can display surprising rigidity in how they think about problems (e.g., “functional fixedness”) that lead them astray. How can our capacity for behavioral flexibility be reconciled with our susceptibility to conceptual inflexibility? We propose that these tendencies reflect avoidance of two cognitive costs: the cost of representing task details and the cost of switching between representations. To test this hypothesis, we developed a novel paradigm that affords participants opportunities to choose different families of simplified representations to plan. In two preregistered, online studies (Ns = 377 and 294 adults), we found that participants’ optimal behavior, suboptimal behavior, and reaction time were explained by a computational model that formalized people’s avoidance of representational complexity and switching. These results demonstrate how the selection of simplified, rigid representations leads to the otherwise puzzling combination of flexibility and inflexibility observed in problem solving.

Keywords

planning problem solving causal reasoning functional fixedness task switching open data open materials preregistered

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

K. R.

Smith

K. A.

Tenenbaum

J. B.

(2020). Rapid trial-and-error learning with simulation supports flexible tool use and physical reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(47), 29302–29310.

Anderson

J. R.

(1990). The adaptive character of thought. Erlbaum.

Arrington

C. M.

Logan

G. D.

(2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15(9), 610–615.

Binz

Schulz

(2023). Reconstructing the Einstellung effect. Computational Brain & Behavior, 6, 526–542.

Cushman

Morris

(2015). Habitual control of goal selection in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112(45), 13817–13822.

Daw

N. D.

Niv

Dayan

(2005). Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1704–1711.

Dayan

Niv

(2008). Reinforcement learning: The good, the bad and the ugly. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 185–196.

Duncker

(1945). On problem-solving ( Lees

L. S.

, Trans.). Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i–113.

Gershman

S. J.

Horvitz

E. J.

Tenenbaum

J. B.

(2015). Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines. Science, 349(6245), 273–278.

10.

Grange

J. A.

Houghton

(2014). Task switching and cognitive control: An introduction. In Grange

J. A.

Houghton

(Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press.

11.

Griffiths

T. L.

Lieder

Goodman

N. D.

(2015). Rational use of cognitive resources: Levels of analysis between the computational and the algorithmic. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 217–229.

12.

M. K.

Abel

Correa

C. G.

Littman

M. L.

Cohen

J. D.

Griffiths

T. L.

(2022). People construct simplified mental representations to plan. Nature, 606, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04743-9

13.

Huys

Q. J. M.

Lally

Faulkner

Eshel

Seifritz

Gershman

S. J.

Dayan

Roiser

J. P.

(2015). Interplay of approximate planning strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112(10), 3098–3103.

14.

Kaplan

C. A.

Simon

H. A.

(1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 374–419.

15.

Knoblich

Ohlsson

Haider

Rhenius

(1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1534–1555.

16.

Lewis

R. L.

Howes

Singh

(2014). Computational rationality: Linking mechanism and behavior through bounded utility maximization. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(2), 279–311.

17.

Luce

R. D.

(1959). Individual choice behavior. John Wiley.

18.

Luchins

A. S.

Luchins

E. H.

(1959). Rigidity of behavior: A variational approach to the effect of Einstellung. University of Oregon Press.

19.

Maier

N. R. F.

(1930). Reasoning in humans. I. On direction. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10(2), 115–143.

20.

Marr

(1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman and Company.

21.

Mattar

M. G.

Lengyel

(2022). Planning in the brain. Neuron, 110(6), 914–934.

22.

Metcalfe

(1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(4), 623–634.

23.

Monsell

(2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.

24.

Newell

Simon

H. A.

(1972). Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall.

25.

Ohlsson

(1984). Restructuring revisited: II. An information processing theory of restructuring and insight. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25(2), 117–129.

26.

Ohlsson

(2012). The problems with problem solving: Reflections on the rise, current status, and possible future of a cognitive research paradigm. The Journal of Problem Solving, 5(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1144

27.

Russell

Norvig

(2009). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

28.

Shenhav

Botvinick

M. M.

Cohen

J. D.

(2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007

29.

Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(1995). The nature of insight. MIT Press.

30.

Sutton

R. S.

Barto

A. G.

(2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT Press.

31.

Vandierendonck

Liefooghe

Verbruggen

(2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626.

32.

Virtanen

Gommers

Oliphant

T. E.

Haberland

Reddy

Cournapeau

Burovski

Peterson

Weckesser

Bright

van der Walt

S. J.

Brett

Wilson

Millman

K. J.

Mayorov

Nelson

A. R. J.

Jones

Kern

Larson

. . . SciPy 1.0 Contributors. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17, 261–272.

33.

Wilson

R. C.

Collins

A. G. E.

(2019). Ten simple rules for the computational modeling of behavioral data. eLife, 8, Article e49547. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49547

34.

Wood

Rünger

(2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.62 MB

Rational Simplification and Rigidity in Human Planning

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material