Complex Problem Solving and Its Position in the Wider Realm of the Human Intellect

Abstract

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.-Albert Einstein Over the last century, a wealth of studies has accumulated that provides evidence for the paramount relevance of general mental ability or g as an overarching indicator of the human intellect for virtually any indicator of life success [1]. For instance, Deary, Strand, Smith, and Fernandes (2007) report a correlation of 0.81 between a latent g-factor score and a latent factor of educational achievement in a prospective study of 70,000 secondary students over five years [2]. In fact, there are many other studies that support this pattern of results. Also, comprehensive theories such as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll-theory (CHC-theory) often contain g as the most general (and most relevant) factor at the apex, but they usually include additional factors that are sometimes located on the same level as g and sometimes located on conceptually lower or more specific levels [3]. For instance, CHC-theory assumes a broad g-factor on the top (stratum III), which is further differentiated into lower-level and more specific cognitive abilities (stratum II and stratum I) [3].The type, number, and nature of these additional factors have been subject of intensive and controversial scientific debate, and CHC-theory is still experiencing extensions, particularly with regard to stratum II and stratum III abilities [4]. Some of the efforts that focus on extensions of existing theories of the human intellect are accompanied by general criticisms on the abstract nature of standard tests of g, such as Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices [5]. These tests are, according to their critics, largely out of touch with reality and have limited real-world relevance. Moreover, there is a need for measures that capture certain aspects of the human intellect more comprehensively in addition to and beyond g [6,7].As a response to this need, complex problem solving (CPS) has received considerable attention over the last couple of years as one potential extension of current theories. Both its role within the nexus of other cognitive abilities as well as its assessment are currently under intensive scientific investigation [8][9][10][11]. The core of this special issue is to shed further light on the role of CPS within the broad field of research on the human intellect.When first research reports on CPS emerged in the 1970s, it was the complex and highly face-valid nature of the problem scenarios used in this line of research, in which participants had to explore complex systems and work through environments that tried to mimic real-life scenarios, that was considered important and a viable alternative to or augmentation of existing measures of intelligence [7]. However, the hope put into CPS diminished rather quickly because the conceptual delineation between CPS and g was difficult to establish and to substantiate empirically.

“Oh no, the forest is burning!” cultural differences in the complex problem-solving process only under high uncertainty

“…There is extensive research on complex problem solving (e.g., Frensch and Funke, 1995 ; Dörner, 1996 ; Greiff and Scherer, 2018 ; Schoppek et al, 2018 ) and dynamic decision making (e.g., Fox et al, 2013 ; Gonzalez et al, 2017 ). However, only in recent years have complex problem-solving and dynamic decision making been studied in different cultures and among different nationalities (e.g., Güss et al, 2010 ; Gonzalez and Martin, 2011 ; Lovett and Forbus, 2011 ; Wüstenberg et al, 2014 ).…”