Associative strength in problem solving

Citation preview

ASSOCIATIVE STEIHGT1 IS PSOSLUI SOL?ISO

by Abe,Judson

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

195®

UMI Number: DP70418

All rights reserved INFO RM ATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI D issertation Publishing

UMI DP70418 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). C opyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. M icroform Edition © ProQ uest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProOuest ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

la part, this research was conducted under Contract M7-CBB-397, Task Order III, between the Office of Haval Research And the University of Maiyland. I should like to express thanks to John Farlee, who helped run subjects in the fifth experiment.

Rebecca Renner was good enough to

offer her help in the preparation of tne tnesisj 1 am grateful to her* Professors 1* G. Andrews and R, C. Hackman served as members of my thesis comitted.

I as indebted to thea not only for their advice but

for their encouragement as well. Professor C. H. Gofer directed the thesis.

An adequate expression

of my debt to his would be unseemly} 1 should like merely to say that I am grateful for the opportunity to work with him.

xsaTOonna m m m ®

tgt

m

w m r n m m ohv mrn rn

u wMtm

06

•

99

• * .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... «||tw|

n

• .....................................

.................• • •

fX9 •X3.VTT&

PW&9H

vnss&i vrwmA r u m s ? HI 2SHGJS2HCH0HQ2SI1H T 10 afgjfjsr ggt

99

4

tg

• • • * • • • • • * • • • ..................• • • • X x w m m

m

• * .............

m

............................................... w i «

C9 6$

«ns«n

jercaoHd ivshsa a w n s ? hi goiioiHia 10 sis u m r a a i ?

• • • • • • • • • • • • . .

ax w m m

.

................................... • • • n t m m p * v v n m m

..............................

n

..........................

f#w9**j gofttx

icnaosa tnbbjl m m $ v hi m r m r n JO 2109 2HI JO SISnVKT TfJffiXEBMM 29

if

CC

...................

m

• • • • • • • • • .............

09

* * * ........... * ...............

t

mxwmrnm niftm

• *

9u|Atos

xx i

m

jo »©u*a&t«h HOIXQfiaOSmt

«9«d

SA88IHQD JO FlWri

n

poq***

ssiAtog mr n r n nr sm m s M saxx?xdoss? asstsgom jo high n a

ft

2T

XXI W L M W O

I t!I£

4

ft*

«$

S i .a 2 8 2 S € S ! a •3 ► *

Is

»

£

*

m

1

%

«*

6

0

«

I

«*4 H

%»

40

-

1

S

40

1 1 a : .

B

4*1

I

t

t 0

t

* fr

® -

1 8 s a *•

1!

1

4»

A

a I 8 2 A*

©

8

t»

• 4*4

8 i it

4*

3 2 I

1

*

* .JI

i

_ *4^ a «•

a

%4

•

i

i * a £ £ 8 i 2 *• Jf 8 2 2 I * I ~ 2 1 2 i I 2 0

0

9*

H

•

4*4

©

H

S

0 4*4

ft*

HI

*

8

.

i!I 3 8 2 : c «*»

2

4*4

4*4

£

(although not necessarily# a* in manipulative or mechanical pussies) dee®riplive of or inferred from behavior that i« essentially verbal, for ososiplot the flash enperleiiee of Insight to said to eecur when* la a spseifl* m m * a subjeet westdng oa the Kaler two* string problem ijf) suddenly says* *0h# 1 too - * you hr.ro to eenvert oao of tho strings to a pendulum.* & subject to faced with the following problem!

®§ivea a

human being ^tth an inoperable utemaeli tumor, and m y * which destroy signal* tissue at sufficient intensity# by what procedure ooa oao fro® hl» of tho tunny by these rays aad at tho sen* tine avoid destroying tho heel thy tissue which surrounds it.*(11* p.l). fht various unsuccessful verbal attempt* at eolutloa any* depending oa the rlgsrsasasst with which wo moo tho term* ho sfcaanetsvissd at trial sad orror behavior# If la the ray problem* either at a result of different last m e t lent or different tatsfsets* oao group concent rates lie offorto at modifying the m y o and the second at acidifying the tissue, wo may toy that the two troupe hare 41 fforest sole toward the problem or have adopted differ* oat diroot lone in seeking for a solution to the problem,

the eel or

direction ie Inferred from what the subject •ays.

In none of these instances, is the Interest of the investigator directed toward the word* tfcsaeslvss*

Hie interest is focussed upon

the various concept*? the words are simply a oonwonlent aeans of oh*

talaiag infom a t ion about the reasoning presses but are not In them* solves eons 1dared to piay an Important role in rsashlag the solution. It may be eaid that the assumption* implicitly common to all such investigations are: (1) Other than &« a means pf ossssunlentixif the '-■ * \ '4 ■, ,•' solution or attempts at solution* the words art not important factor* in the reasoning process,

it) fho vocabulary of the various subjects

I

1s ©

**

ft Hm

ev *

»

s

1 *

»

«c4 *

I

* •

I

M

i

* I

I©

» « , '
0

H P

®

' ^i

m

m

* 0 5 h* m

f

£ 8 m m

3

I * ft ft I I ft 8

3

If

H

a

i » !t-» 1H» f t g M* «

IM* **

e

m

•ft ^

|

H 9

|

ft

3 ** 3 ft*

r 3 *

a

*►

3 •ft

H*

»

8

|

ft

X

*% e

1gar sa !a ig» § « * * a% **

«

«*

** &

0

J

fc f»

*

&

I

n

* f 1 * J 1

i 3 I I I

&

a

•

a

ift* I

i l l ! g

r

s

s t 3

I

!U H

ft

:

1 5 a

*

I

1 I 8 ft ft 8 •ft •
.05

New Year’s Bay Christ

1? 49

19 35

17 m

21

32

5 11

19 31

3.53

> .05

aria peals

34 21

29

20

27

31 22

8 9

31 20

6.69

> .05

lefcert MaiT

7 P

13 43

11 47

9 45

2 14

8 44

2.90

> .05

currency church

m 20

49 8

42 13

34 21

7 11

24 27

25.68

< .01

apprentice convert

11 3*

f 33

17 25

8 39

2 12

5 40

12.62


.05

fairy Bevil

34 23

19 27

19 29

24 20

4 10

17 22

5.62

>

•m

.05

*tfhan cell frequencies la the Protestant 4 yronp was let* than 5« It eenblned vlth tb* Protectant 3 yronp.

I

s

J& «I «

i3

!t

■m

*3 t |

5 I

*

« ©

1

ja «a

os

»

0 4* ll

s 1

1*

o

2

|

I **

t 4*

• «

g

2 ©

JP H 2

S %4

e

©

2 ** 5. 2 2 2 fi "d £ £ ** t P !

45 %4 2

5

S 2 |3

I

v» a Jf

** i^

h

4f r* £ «

1 S 3 fl o

g s l i

1 s' I 1 C flO « p &I © i 4*

V«

1*4

3 I

|

Ii J

mi

§ *4

1 « ** I© .

£ 4*

.

§ o

*•*

Vi

# «*


to our hypothesis that differential

4 2

5* Vi 2

suite* therefore* lend

of the responses made ©a serem! the large aoafcor of Incorrect

s

s 5• T*

W |

m

m u

mn

¥ r * m * m y of Boepos&oo to "Jfon-relipioa* %%m§ for Catholics. Frotootoot t and J s m

Catholic# Protestant o Je#o — X « . A ... .-.. I • .im. , ..!_•_«

0M~

jmsm.

chair violin

54 r

189 21

50 2

child «*•«*

45 18

154 34

42 7

4.48

> .05

ship soldier

42 m

135 52

39 13

2.74

>

s o s sat*

43 25

119 ?S

32 20

.04

> .05

football badminton

14

128 53

41 11

t.s?

> .05

Minor ieportant

48 13

121 51

34 14

1.31

> .05

ftoon flow?

49 IS

13® 49

33 15

•43

^ .05

boor do#

4f 14

133 53

35 14

.99

> .05

cat elephant

18 52

29 180

a 44

2.80

> .05

train

34 34

107 ?5

2t 24

2.10

> .05

•ditorial sysmhony

8 55

n I#

8 42

1-32

> .05

MSCl. clTOlo

t? 38

94 ft

27 23

2.0?

> .05

door c.rpot

3© J*

77 110

24

26

*34

penguin imi

s

48 142

ia 34

3.99

> .05

lard f**

IS 48

54 134

18

•29

> .05

35

> .95

>

.05

.05

faWa m n ?r»^u*acy af &••$$&«• ia *!©»«.**llgioa" H t » « far Catholic*, Protestant* &ad Java (Continued)

Catholic*

fltnanat.

Fraiaataaia

Jaw*

-..,.J...r.A.. ...„l„? 19S

congressman shatiffaar

29 36

88 fi

22 29

h&hjf £a$

n

If

ff m

31

Harding Meanhwer

18 5©

nylon weed

60

it m

theater novelist

42 m

lea hockey evimwia^

t

62

yacht

$

n . 39

6M-

..Jima

£.

;i4

> .05

Xf

3.92

> .05

55

XI

13*

39

*42

> .05

2 48

X*ff

> .05

im m

23 28

4.00

> .05

10 166

49

2*66

> .05

_ ?X

21

2.40

> .05

l.ff

> .05

.58

> .05

3.5X

> .05

116

X

25

vagaa motorcycle •

49 xi

w 3X

42

Heaven Bavil

xi 55

3© X5$

10 41

Washiacton Barcelona

2* *3

46 X40

40

rat wool

If Hi

5X X|6

It 39

.29

> .05

subtract lncrea**

21 H|

If X2f

Xf 32

.72

> .05

knife rata

55 12

149 38

3? 14

X.fX

> .05

window tail*

14 4?

40 X|6

f

32

.45

> .05

lima

f 5f

12 XfO

40

1.64

> .05

i!

XX

5

m

?a»u m i x frequency af lospoa** to #lToa^rell£ioa# Ite»« for Catholics, Protestants and f«nr« (Continued)

Mfrc&ftftt.....

Catholics I •.69

Protootmat•

out*

-...1 * .190 _

imt9 1 • $L * 12 33

P.lb

> .05

MMSSL

titter uncle

19 60

m 138

pokor tenni*

2 55

t m

1 65

I M

> .05

chicken valf

m f

131 *1

32 It

2 *21

> .©5

took mushroom

53 i

150 6

39 0

2.62

>

.05

rap* fork

to tf

6* 80

13 22

.72

>

.05

tody nail

33 If

86 m

27 8

2.68

>

.05

85

Zm

ftm first masabiimotis m r & la a aeries exert* an Inhibitory effect

upon the alternative raepeaee e**t*t©rl*« that a succeeding sshl^uaut vert would ordinarily strengthen,

the magnitude of thle effect le

apparently a function of the preeiee serial arrangeaent of word®. 3,

A anafeer of *religion* questions tended to discriminate among subject*

vith attuned dlffereneee in associative strength to * religion11 words vherea* #a@a-religleii* questions did not.

Thi* indicate* that differ*

entlal associative strength le a footer In response*

0w m m

f»s w m m

r

m 4 mmrnmm m m s m

ih 4 m m m r m m t m m m

la Chapters II* III and IT* studies were presented which wars Interpreted t© show that behavior ia a proUtK nitmotion is % function of previous response tendencies I© the elements of the problem sitaution. these response tendencies had been