Differences in the distribution of attention to trained procedure between finders and non-finders of the alternative better procedure

Abstract

The human ability to flexibly discover alternatives without fixating on a known solution supports a variety of human creative activities. Previous research has shown that people who discover an alternative procedure relax their attentional bias to information regarding the known solutions just prior to the discovery. This study examined whether the difference in the distribution of attention between the finders and non-finders of the alternative procedure is observed from the phase of solving the problem using the trained procedure. We evaluated the characteristics of the finders' distribution of attention in situations where problem solving using a trained procedure was successful. This aspect has been little examined in previous research. Our study obtained empirical evidence for the fact that, compared to non-finders, finders pay more attention to information unrelated to the trained procedure acquired through knowledge and experience, even time when using a trained procedure. We also confirmed that this difference does not exist from the beginning of the task, but emerges during repeated use of familiar procedures. These findings indicate that in order to find an alternative procedure, one should not only divert attention from a familiar procedure just before the discovery but also pay a certain amount of attention to information unrelated to the familiar procedure even when the familiar procedure is functioning well.

Using position rather than color at the traffic light – Covariation learning-based deviation from instructions in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

“…For instance, think-aloud protocols in Blech et al (2020) show that participants keep starting with the wrong element. Recent eyetracking work suggests that attention remains allocated to elements involved in the standard solution in those participants who do not eventually shift to the alternative strategy ( Ninomiya et al, 2022 ). In a similar vein, eyetracking in chess problems has shown that a known solution captures attention even though problem solvers believe that they are occupied with an alternative solution approach ( Bilaliæ et al, 2008 ).…”

“…While with water jar problems (cf. Luchins and Luchins, 1994 ; Blech et al, 2020 ; Ninomiya et al, 2022 ) or chess problems (cf. Bilaliæ et al, 2008 ; Sheridan and Reingold, 2013 ) participants need to be selected such that their skills are sufficient to perform the basic tasks (mental calculation or playing chess at a decent level), our covariation learning task is more broadly applicable.…”

“…While task sets allow stable goal pursuit in stable environments, they can hinder learning about alternative ways to deal with a task ( Kamin, 1968 ; Doll et al, 2009 ). The shielding function of task sets can lead to rigidity such as documented in the set effect (e.g., Luchins, 1942 ; Ninomiya et al, 2022 ).…”