An Aspect of Human Reasoning

Maier, Norman R. F.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1933.tb00692.x

Cited by 64 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, too, there is disagreement as to whether training is helpful or not. Early studies by Maier (1933) indicated that it is, and these found support in later work (e.g., Lung & Dominowski, 1985). Some studies showed that those individuals most likely to "break the set" are also most likely to solve a problem (Dover & Shore, 1991).…”

Section: Creativity and Problem Solvingmentioning

confidence: 92%

Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory

Neuringer

2002

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

221

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although responses are sometimes easy to predict, at other times responding seems highly variable, unpredictable, or even random. The inability to predict is generally attributed to ignorance of controlling variables, but this article is a review of research showing that the highest levels of behavioral variability may result from identifiable reinforcers contingent on such variability. That is, variability is an operant. Discriminative stimuli and reinforcers control it, resulting in low or high variability, depending on the contingencies. Schedule-of-reinforcement effects are orderly, and choosing to vary or repeat is lawfully governed by relative reinforcement frequencies. The operant nature of variability has important implications. For example, learning, exploring, creating, and problem solving may partly depend on it. Abnormal levels of variability, including those found in psychopathologies such as autism, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, may be modified through reinforcement. Operant variability may also help to explain some of the unique attributes of voluntary action.

show abstract

Section: Creativity and Problem Solvingmentioning

confidence: 92%

Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory

Neuringer

2002

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

221

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tasks were: the box-candle problem (Maier, 1933), flower-stand problem (Duncker, 1945), two-string problem (Maier, 1933), hat-rack problem (Maier, 1933), marbletransfer problem (Saugstad & Raaheim, 1957), candle problem (Saugstad, 1955), and truck-retrieval problem (Saugstad & Raaheim,1957).…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning to solve insight problems

Jacobs

Dominowski

1981

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of seven insight problems was given to 28 male and 28 female college students. Each problem required that an object be used in a novel manner to reach solution, but both the critical object and its required use varied across problems. Subjects showed moderate improvement in performance on the second half of the problem series. Males solved more quickly than females; relatively stable and predictable individual differences in performance were observed. Results support the conclusions that insight problems form a class involving common abilities and that general transfer effects can occur if sufficient practice is given.

show abstract

“…Dialogue, a mutual interchange of stances between at least two partners (Tsoukas, 2009), can be verbal, non-verbal and vocal. Productive dialogue (Tsoukas 2009;Majchrzak et al, 2012) results in a common end-in-view, activating the reflective experience (as Maier's (1933) productive thinking) and thus also 'changing the way the thought process occurs collectively' [Bohm, (1996), p. 9]. Reproductive dialogue leaves the end-in-view unchallenged and therefore, the handling of the activity draws on habitual experience (as Maier's (1933) reproductive thinking).…”

Section: Experience and End-in-viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doing product development activities: the role of experience and ends-in-view

Mathiasen

2017

IJIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on Deweyan pragmatism and the Science-Technology-Society approach, this ethnographic research aims at understanding the role of experience and ends-in-view when handling a product development activity. The research focuses on doings conceptualised as engineer-artefact reciprocity and contributes to practice-based learning and product development studies. The analysis demonstrates that past activities embodied in experience and materialised in artefacts and, likewise, future activities embodied in ends-in-view influence the handling of an activity differently, resulting in either a derailment of handling the activity, habitual completion or reflective completion of the activity. Derailment occurs when experienced engineers are incapable of achieving a common end-in-view; habitual completion is when engineers form a vague end-in-view and no one challenges this; and past experience combined with the formation of a common end-in-view paves the way for reflective completion of the activity. Only the lastmentioned facilitates engineers to gain new experience and create usable artefacts.

show abstract

An Aspect of Human Reasoning

Cited by 64 publications

References 0 publications

Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory

Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory

Learning to solve insight problems

Doing product development activities: the role of experience and ends-in-view

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About