The Effects of Superficial and Structural Information on Online Problem Solving for Good versus Poor Anagram Solvers

Abstract

The two experiments reported here tested two predictions concerning the sensitivity of good and poor problem solvers to superficial and structural information during online problem solving: (a) Superficial features have a greater effect on solution difficulty for poor problem solvers, whereas (b) structural features have a greater effect on solution difficulty for good problem solvers. The tests were conducted in the domain of anagram solution by manipulating or measuring several superficial and structural characteristics in this domain. The results supported both predictions. They also indicated that better problem solvers have access to structural information from the earliest stages of processing (within the first 2 s). The authors discuss the implications of their results for the types of solution strategies used by more and less competent anagram solvers.

The Syllable Effect in Anagram Solution: Unrecognised Evidence from Past Studies

“…It also seems likely that the effect applies to most people in that the participants of these studies were not selected to be good solvers. This is not to say that Novick and Sherman (2008) are wrong in arguing that there may still be a differential effect of syllables on good solvers, who may be particularly sensitive to it.…”

“…This can also be seen in the way the pronounceability effect has generally been examined and discussed. Novick and Sherman (2008) describe it as "superficial" and something which is more likely to affect poor solvers. Yet the detrimental effect of pronounceability on anagram solution has been demonstrated on many occasions (Herbert & Rogers, 1966;Dominowski, 1966;Gilhooly & Johnson, 1978).…”

“…The results are discussed in the light of other research and it is suggested that anagram solution may have more in common with other word identification and reading processes than has been previously thought. Anagrams and Syllables Recently Novick and Sherman (2008) provided evidence that good and poor solvers of anagrams are influenced by different types of information when solving anagrams. Specifically they found that "superficial features" of anagrams like pronounceability have a greater effect on solution difficulty for poor problem solvers, whereas "structural features" like the number of syllables have a greater effect on good anagram solvers.…”

“…It should be noted that Novick and Sherman (2008) provide inadvertent evidence that the number of syllables is an important determinant of anagram difficulty in their screening pretest. This was an ecologically valid measure of anagram ability which contained 20 difficult five letter anagrams from those appearing in daily newspapers across the United States (Arnold & Lee, 1973).…”

“…In this paper the results from six studies examining the variables which affect anagram solution difficulty will be reexamined. These studies were chosen because, as with all anagram studies before Novick and Sherman (2008) , gavel, impel, gaily, axiom, genus, louse, gnome, milky, naïve, power, tweak, rivet, smoky, chute, spurn, madly, scour, depot/opted, probe. as a confounding variable was ignored, but for these studies sufficient detail was available to evaluate this impact. It will be demonstrated that for two of the studies, the number of syllables is as likely to have affected anagram solution as the proposed variable, and for four studies the impact of number of syllables will be quantified.…”