New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Week 5

by: Briana Hughes

Week 5 PSY 3100 002

Briana Hughes
GPA 3.8

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

This document outlines the 2 readings that were assigned for Week 5. The outline is organized by chapter titles and subtitles. Important information is bold and/or italicized.
Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity
Dr. Weisberg
Class Notes
Psychology, Creativity, Topics
25 ?




Popular in Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity

Popular in Psychlogy

This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Briana Hughes on Wednesday February 17, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 3100 002 at Temple University taught by Dr. Weisberg in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 14 views. For similar materials see Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity in Psychlogy at Temple University.


Reviews for Week 5


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 02/17/16
Chapter 4 The Cognitive Perspective on Creativity, Part 2: Knowledge and Expertise in Problem Solving  Weak Heuristic Methods used in Watson and Crick’s discovery of the double helix and Picasso’s creation of Guernica o Information not relevant in detail to the problem = MINIMALLY top- down  Strong methods of problem solving are based on individual’s possessing information related more directly to the specific problem o More top down in nature o Person’s knowledge about situation directs problem-solving activities  2 different uses of knowledge during problem solving: Analogical Transfer and Expertise Use of Knowledge in Problem Solving: Studies of Analogical Transfer  Analogical thinking: use info from familiar situation, usually stored in memory, in order to deal with new situation that is analogous (in structure) to the familiar one o Specific objects involved may be different o Can be used in understanding unfamiliar situation or solving unfamiliar problem  In Science: structure of the solar system (familiar) provided way of understanding structure of atom  Chemistry: behavior of billiard balls used to describe behavior of gases  In Psychology: Newell and Simon use computer information processing as way of understanding human cognitive processes o Analogical transfer: transfer solution method from old problem to the new one that is analogous to it  Top-down use of information from memory  Details of the information involved (specific to situation) make this method different from weak methods (non- specific info)  Continuity with the past  Examples:  The Fortress and the tumor = “convergence” solution  Watson and Crick’s use of Pauling’s alpha-helix as basis for DNA helix o Working backwards o Alpha-keratin and DNA are analogous molecules o Used weak method of working backwards then because of knowledge, also employed strong method  How we understand human virus = how we understand computer virus  Familiar situation: base  New situation: target  The base is extended to or transferred to the target  Target problem might be solved by transferring to it the solution from a base problem Types of Analogies  Cognitive psychologies classified analogies according to similarity between base and target info  Dunbar classifies analogies as local, regional, and remote o Local: the base and target come from the same domain  Biologist studying HIV has problem with design for new experiment so uses methods from old HIV experiment o Regional: the base and target come from the same “region of knowledge” i.e. both viruses  Biologist studying HIV has problem with design for new experiment so uses methods from old Ebola experiment o Remote: base and target from domains that are only distantly related  Kekule discovery of structure of benzene, snake represented a string of atoms Potential Limitations on Analogical Transfer  Positive transfer: is there a negative transfer???  3 potential obstacles: 1. You may not have solved a related problem in the past a. not of great theoretical significance in understanding problem solving 2. You possess prior knowledge that could be applied but don’t realize it a. Information is available in memory but not accessible during problem solving b. Not all info in memory usable/retrievable in problem solving under all circumstances 3. Even if info retrieved, not guaranteed that solution will occur a. Requires Mapping: analogous concepts in the two problems must be matched up explicitly, so that the solution can be applied to the target Limitations on Transfer of Knowledge in Problem Solving: Inert Knowledge  Gick and Holyoak (1980, 1983) used Radiation problem as target problem o Tested spontaneous transfer in undergrads o Not told that the base problem (The General Problem) was relevant to the target problem (The Radiation Problem)  Baseline/control weren’t exposed to The General Problem – performed poorly  Hint group were exposed to General Problem and told it might help – performed well  Spontaneous Transfer Group, not told it might help – performed poorly  Knowledge of The General Problem was inert/inactive/irretrievable  SAME results when 2 analogues and discussion to create Schema; presented in same context o Goal of education: foster “spontaneous” transfer; kids go into real world and apply what they learned in school to new situations, on their own  Spencer and Weisberg (1986) presented 2 base analogues The General and Red Adair o The analogues presented in one context; the target Radiation problem presented in different context  NO transfer without a hint  Same physical context but separating them psychologically completely eliminated transfer  Memory search during problem solving is restricted  Lack of transfer has been found in many other problem- solving situations Laboratory Studies of Transfer in Problem Solving: Conclusions  People have hard time accessing base info when target is only distantly (remotely) related  Thought processes involved not based on abstract principles but on concrete principles Transfer in the Real World versus the Laboratory: The Analogical Paradox  According to Dunbar, Watson and Crick paradox concerning analogical transfer: why is transfer easy to find in real life but not in lab: o Regional analogy: both base (alpha-helix) and target (DNA) part of their domain of research o Already thought of each molecule abstractly o Expertise in an area may make analogical transfer more likely to occur  College undergrads naïve  Analogies serving seminal creative advances should be no more remote than those used by ordinary people Applying Retrieved Information to the Target: Studies of Mapping  If Radiation problem reminds person of General problem, still have to work out specifics of how base can be adapted to the target  Ross and colleagues (1997) found that if base and target problems contained same objects but in different role, transfer did not occur o Statistical principle same in both problems & formula presented with each problem o Formula was not understood as abstract principle but “embodied” in the specific objects from problem in which it was first encountered  Why can get problems in class but not apply it to homework Transfer in Problem Solving: Factors Influencing Retrieval versus Mapping  Gentner, Rattermann, and Forbus (1999) proposed “surface similarities” (objects in common) are critical in retrieval of a base analogue when target problem presented o Retrieval only if objects AND relationships among the objects are similar o New situation may remind you of old one because similar objects. NOT because of similar methods of solving. The methods of solving could have been different in the base problem therefore they won’t be useful in the target problem. Strong Methods in Problem Solving: Studies of Expertise  Expert: a person who possesses deep knowledge in the domain of the target problem  Through years of immersion in domain, able to apply strong methods to problem  Top-down processes  Dunbar pointed this out in Watson and Crick’s discover Expertise: A Question of Definition  In literature, Expert: someone who exhibits consistent superior accomplishments as a result of practice  Ordinary conversation, Expert: person who exhibits high degree of competence in some area, irrespective of how it was acquired  WE WILL USE, Expertise in the ordinary sense: result of practice, study, or both Expertise and Problem Solving in Chess  De Groot (1965) first modern work to emphasize top-down, concept-driven,, knowledge-based nature of problem solving o How Chess Masters make moves o Large problem space o Masters search more broadly; Breadth: how many moves one considers in the first place o Masters search problem space more extensively than nonmasters; Depth: how much detail with which one considers the outcomes of each of these moves  CONCLUSION: Masters did not search more broadly because they see/recognize the good moves o Master can recognize new game position as somewhat familiar o Years of study and practice provide knowledge that helps in situation o Must form and maintain a detailed internal representation of the game  Once you remember the one or 2 moves; go in depth analyzing them to determine which one  In this process, can discover new move  Rely heavily on memory to play o Chase and Simon (1973) replicated study  Included another condition that questioned memory of chess masters  When had to remember chest board with pieces placed randomly, couldn’t  Could only remember chest board set up properly because have so much experience with it The 10-Year Rule  Chase and Simon (1973) recorded eye movements of players studying board and analyzed how pieces were put on board during memory task o Clustering/chunking: looked at related pieces together and put them back together during recall task  Novice wouldn’t see relations between pieces; chest master can  Top-down process affects focusing attention in a situation which affects what they recall o Chest masters able to recognize 50,00 chunks from chess games and use those to play o Need at least 10 years deeply immersed in chest to develop knowledge base to perform at highest level  10 Year Rule o Rule can be applied to many domains; common top-down thread tying together recognition, attention, memory, problem solving and creative thinking Expertise in Physics  De Groot (1965) inspired study of expertise in other domains  Physics problems interesting because can be analyzed in at least two ways: 1. at the surface level, on basis of objects involved 2. on basis of underlying principles of physics that required to solve each of them  Expert physicists have developed knowledge that enables them to analyze problem at conceptual level; focusing on relevant components of the problem  Chi and Colleagues (1981) asked experts and novices to sort physics problems o Novices grouped them based on objects o Experts grouped them based on principles Practice and Expertise in Musical Performance  Deliberate practice: repetition, often under supervision of teacher or coach, of specific elements of skill that the individual wishes to improve  Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) studied expertise in 4 groups of musicians of different levels of skill o Professionals spent more time practicing than students and also more time sleeping (effortful practice necessitated sleep for recovery) o Better student violinists started earlier and practiced more than other students o CONCLUDED: different levels of achievement results from different levels of practice  Bloom and Colleagues (1985) o studied athletes, scientists, and artists and found excellence came only after years of practice o One does not achieve expertise on their own; depend on strong support by network of individuals i.e. coaches and parents Expertise and Practice: Questions of Causation  Perhaps higher levels of talent drive people to practice more and not the other way around o Studies don’t show causal relationships; just show correlations Outline of a Cognitive-Analytic Model of Problem Solving: Strong and Weak Methods in Problem Solving  Cognitive-analytic model o Step 1: attempt to match situation with person’s knowledge o Step 2: analyze problem using knowledge about situation  Expertise: relatively precise match between problem and knowledge  Person retrieves solution that fits closely  If transfers successfully, problem solved  If doesn’t transfer successfully, try weak heuristic method o If successful, problem solved o If unsuccessful, fail and give up Weak Heuristic Methods, Analogical Transfer, and Expertise: Points on a Continuum  3 categories of methods of problem solving on a continuum, not separate modes of problem solving  Heuristic methods: very general developed out of wide range of person’s experience  Analogical Transfer: person is using knowledge/study/practice but in general nature  Expertise: master chess player uses intense knowledge in domain-specific way The Cognitive Perspective on Problem Solving and Creativity: Conclusions and Implications  Newell and Simon specific about several additional aspects of the type of problem solving that qualifies as creative thinking: o Product is novel and of value, for the thinking or for the culture  We agree that problem solving as creative thinking produces novel products; disregard value aspect o The thinking is unconventional, in that it require modification or rejection of previously accepted ideas  Not necessarily, in Guernica and DNA double helix; fine-tuning to adapt old idea to new situation NOT rejection of past o The thinking requires high motivation and persistence, taking place either over a considerable span of time or a high intensity  May not be necessary  High levels of motivation or intensity are not unique to situations requiring creative thinking  Also, someone can quickly and easily produce a creative response without working at high intensity or for long period of time o The problem initially posed was vague and ill-defined  Not only ill-defined problems require creative thinking


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.