Experiments with SetTwo studies on Set game play

Johanna M. B. Craig

December 15, 2004

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

J. M. B. Craig 2

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................3INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................3

BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................5

THE GAME OF SET......................................................................................................................................5PURPOSE.....................................................................................................................................................7RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION...................................................................................................10

EXPERIMENT 1 – THE TRAINING STUDY..........................................................................................13

METHOD.....................................................................................................................................................13Participants...........................................................................................................................................13Materials...............................................................................................................................................13Design...................................................................................................................................................13Procedure..............................................................................................................................................14

RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................14DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................................15

EXPERIMENT 2 – THE THINK-ALOUD STUDY.................................................................................17

METHOD.....................................................................................................................................................17Participants...........................................................................................................................................17Materials, Design and Procedure.........................................................................................................17

RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................18The Novice Player.................................................................................................................................18The Expert Player.................................................................................................................................19

DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................................20

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................21

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................22

APPENDIX A – PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE – NOVEMBER 2004........................................23

APPENDIX B – STROOP TASKS.............................................................................................................24

APPENDIX C – REMOTE ASSOCIATES PRE-TEST...........................................................................24

APPENDIX D – REMOTE ASSOCIATES POST-TEST........................................................................24

APPENDIX E – SET GAME RESOURCES.............................................................................................25

Appendix F – Training Study Results........................................................................................................26

J. M. B. Craig 3

Abstract

Set is a card game often touted to help individuals become better critical

thinkers and problem solvers, yet no previous empirical research has been done

on the cognitive aspects of its game play. In this paper I describe two studies of

the cognitive aspects of Set. The first experiment is a training study, with the

experimental group training on Set game play. Pre and post-test measures of

inhibition/interference, convergent thinking, and Set game play ability are

discussed. The second experiment is a novice-expert think-aloud experiment.

Understanding expertise is relevant and important as it can offer insight into the

thinking and problem solving strategies employed by Set players. I conclude with

some thoughts on how to improve the first experiment as well as some ideas for

further study.

Introduction

Games are often used in both formal and informal learning environments

as a fun and challenging extension to typical learning activities. Games like

Candy Land, Go Fish! or Chutes and Ladders are often played with preschool-

aged children to help them learn their colors and develop “number sense.” As

children mature, the educational game palette expands to include card games,

strategy games, word games, and trivia games as well as a wide variety of

computer “edutainment” titles.

One such title is the card game Set, which is used in a variety of

educational settings. Parents play Set with their kids at home, teenagers play Set

with their friends during free periods at school, and teachers often use Set with

J. M. B. Craig 4

students in both gifted and special education programs. There is a small amount

of research on the math of Set (Van Brink, 1997; Quinn, Weening, and Koca, Jr.,

1999) but no one has ever really investigated the cognitive basis for the game. It

is clear that Set game play involves pattern recognition and working memory to

some extent, but why would it make kids better problem solvers and increase

higher-order thinking skills?

In search for the answer to this question, I designed two experiments in

hopes of acquiring a greater understanding of the cognitive dimension of Set

game play. The first experiment addresses the mechanism of Set game play and

posits that training on Set game play could foster improvement in specific

measures of cognitive functions. The second experiment addresses the novice-

expert paradigm with regard to Set game play strategies. To this end, I

developed the following two research questions.

1) What does playing the game of Set cognitively entail?

2) What do novice and expert Set strategies look like?

In this paper I will describe the background of my study, including the game play

of Set, the purpose of my two experiments, the research setting, and the

participants’ backgrounds. I will then discuss the methods and results of each of

my experiments. I finish with a discussion of my findings and based on these

findings, make some suggestions for further research on this topic.

J. M. B. Craig 5

Background

The Game of Set

A Set deck consists of 81 cards with three variations across four

attributes: number, color, symbol, and shading (see Figure 1). No two cards are

alike.

a) Number – one, two, threeb) Color – red, purple, greenc) Symbol – oval, squiggle, diamondd) Shading – solid, stripes or open

Figure 1: Attributes of a Set card

A 'Set' consists of three cards in which each feature is either the same on each

card or is different on each card. That is to say, any feature in the set of three

cards is either common to all three cards or is different on each card. Figure 2 is

a set because they are the same number (two), the same color (red), the

same shape (ovals) and they are all of different shading. Figure 3 is an

example of the “nothing in common set” as no card has anything in common with

the other 2 cards in the set. They are different in number, color, symbol and

shading.

J. M. B. Craig 6

Figure 2: A typical set

Figure 3: The “nothing in common” set

The game begins with the first 12 cards drawn from the deck arranged in a

3 x 4 rectangle. In the solitaire version, the player makes a set, puts the 3 cards

aside and deals 3 more. In the group version, players call out the word “set”

when they see one and are required to show (and get approval from) the other

players before they can pick up their set and 3 new cards are dealt from the

deck. If the players agree that no set can be found, 3 additional cards are put into

play temporarily. Once a set is found they are not replaced and the board returns

to 12. Game play ends, in both the solitaire and group version, when all the cards

are dealt and no further sets can be found. In the group version, the player with

the most sets is the winner.

There is also a computer-based version of the game Set, known as the

“daily puzzle.” It is available at http://www.setgame.com/set/puzzle_frame.htm

and is played slightly differently from the traditional card game of Set. Here the

player, working alone or in a small group, must identify the six sets embedded in

the 12 card display. In this case, the cards are re-used and the set is not

“collected” – it is merely displayed on a scoreboard so the player can keep track

J. M. B. Craig 7

of how many and which kinds of sets she has already made. Game play ends

when the player finds all 6 sets or gives up. There is a new puzzle every day.

Purpose

The purpose of these two studies is to gain insight and understanding as

to the implications for learning embodied in the game of Set. The goal of the first

study, known as the training study, is to discover the mechanisms invoked by

playing Set and identify the executive functions with which game play correlates.

Secondarily, the goal is to identify whether training on Set game play might yield

a measurable change in performance of some common tasks like the Stroop

Color/Word Test (Stroop, 1935, as referenced in Dempster and Corkill, 1999)

and the Remote Associates Test (Mednick and Mednick, 1967, as referenced in

Leahy and Harris, 2001), or Set game play itself.

One possibility for the mechanism of Set is the interaction of interference

and inhibition. According to Dempster and Corkill (1999), interference is

classically defined as a decline in task performance caused by irrelevant

information or behavior. Inhibition is then defined as the “active dampening

process” (p. 2) by which the interfering information is suppressed. Current work

on interference and inhibition does not always make a clear distinction between

these two concepts. While they are not the same construct, they are closely

related both empirically and theoretically. Set may work through these

mechanisms, as a player must suppress information presented on some cards to

attend to information on the cards that compose the prospective set.

J. M. B. Craig 8

The game of Set might also work through the process of convergent

thinking, where a person begins with highly disparate, weakly-associated

elements and finds some connection between them (Mednick, 1962). This is

traditionally a measure of one type of creativity, but may very well tap into the

same kind of skill required to be a successful Set player.

The executive control of task switching (Miyake et al, 2000) may be

another function employed in the game of Set. Also known as attention switching,

this is the function that allows a person to shift back and forth between mental

sets, tasks, or operations. Each attribute of a Set card could be considered a

different mental set. In order to identify a set, a person must shift back and forth

through the variety of mental sets that comprise the various card attributes. In

this way, the act of generating a set could be conceptualized as a series of

attentional shifts.

While the specific mechanism(s) of Set are still unknown, there is a large

body of research on the various executive functions. Working memory capacity,

for instance, has often been regarded as both fixed and an indicator of general

cognitive functions (Engle, Kane, and Tuholski, 1999). The findings of Klingberg,

Forssberg and Westerberg (2002) seem to contradict this notion. These authors

have recently shown that, through intensive computer training, working memory

capacity can in fact be improved. Klingberg et al. were able to show effects with 7

ADHD children as well as 4 healthy male adults. Not only did the subjects in the

treatment group show improvement in the particular training tasks, but they also

achieved a higher score on the Ravens Progressive Matrices, a task for which

J. M. B. Craig 9

there was no training. Another experiment by Olesen, Westerberg, and

Klingberg (2004) found that working memory training produced a significant

change in brain activity as measured by a functional magnetic resonance

imaging study. These findings may be evidence of “…training-induced plasticity

in the neural systems that underlie working memory” (Olesen, Westerberg, and

Klingberg, 2004, p. 1). These two studies are the basis for the training aspect of

this Set study.

The goal of the second study, known as the think-aloud study, is to gain

an understanding as to how novice and expert strategies differ in Set game play.

Understanding expertise is relevant and important as it can offer insight into the

thinking and problem solving strategies employed by Set players. Experts

possess abilities beyond just general memory or intelligence and tend to see

problems in a very different way than even experienced novices do (Bransford,

Brown, and Cocking, 2000). Expertise has been studied in wide variety of

domains including chess, medical diagnosis, physics, and history. In each of

these cases, expertise in a domain helps people develop a sensitivity to patterns

of meaningful information that are not available to novices (Bransford, Brown,

and Cocking, 2000). Though Set is a very small domain when compared to a

game like chess, there are still a number of strategies employed in game play. As

such, the think-aloud study is based on de Groot’s (1965) idea of think-aloud

protocols for capturing expertise in chess (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking,

2000).

Research Setting and Population

J. M. B. Craig 10

This research took place in conjunction with an upper level Psychology

seminar conducted by a faculty member who is jointly appointed to the

Psychology department and to the Combined Program in Education and

Psychology at a large Midwestern research university. The 10 subjects were

between the ages 14 and 36. The mean age was 26.8. There were six males and

four females. One subject was in high school, one was an undergraduate, five

subjects had completed bachelor’s degrees, and 3 subjects had attended some

college. Six of the subjects had been part of a “gifted and talented” program in

elementary school, and 5 of these programs had a “puzzle or logic problem”

component. One subject, though not in a specific program, spent time in

elementary school working on logic problems and puzzles. Four of the subjects

had played Set before this study.

Figure 4: Favorite School Subjects

forensicsartsenglish/literatureforeign languagesocial sciencesphysical sciencescomputer sciencemathlogiclingustics

J. M. B. Craig 11

The study participants had a wide variety of favorite school subjects (see

Figure 4), with English/Literature being the most common, followed by physical

science. There was less variation in favorite type of board game. Strategy games

like Chess, Risk, and Mastermind were significantly favored, followed by word

games like Scrabble and Boggle (see Figure 5).

Finally, there was again a fair amount of variation among subjects in

regard to favorite computer games (see Figure 6). Simulation games like SimCity

or the Sims and strategy games like Starcraft or Age of Empires were the

favorites, though not by an overwhelming majority like the strategy board games.

Despite the small subject pool, this background data indicates a broad range of

preferences for school-based subject learning and out of school game play, and

as such represents a decent sample for my experiments.

Figure 5: Favorite Board Games

wordstrategytriviamemoryfantasymonopoly

J. M. B. Craig 12

The last piece of background data concerns subjects’ self-reported attitudes on a

5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) in reference to 8

statements on problem and puzzle solving. According to Table 1, on average the

subjects see themselves as oriented towards game playing and problem solving.

They also see themselves as good observers and good with spatial relations.

Table 1: Puzzle and Problem Solving Self-Report

Statement Mean ModeI like crossword puzzles 3.6 4I consider myself to be creative 4.1 4I consider myself to be a good problem solver 4.2 4I like to play board games 3.8 4I am a good “on-your-feet” thinker 4 4I am a keen observer 3.6 4I am good with spatial relations 3.8 4I like to play computer games 3.5 4

Figure 6: Favorite Computer Games

arcadefirst person shootersstrategysimulation cardrole playinginteractive adventurepuzzleword

J. M. B. Craig 13

Experiment 1 – The Training Study

Method

Participants

All 10 subjects participated in this study. They were divided into 2

conditions (6 training, 4 control) based on random assignment. Four of the

subjects had played the game Set before, and 3 of the subjects had previously

taken the Stroop Color/Word Test. None of the subjects had ever taken the

Remote Associates Test.

Materials

An online version of the Stroop Color/Word Test (see Appendix B), a

modified 15 question Remote Associates Test (see Appendix C) and the Set

daily puzzle were used in the pre-test. The Set daily puzzle and the Set game

cards were used in the training portion. The post-test consisted of 3 Stroop tasks

(see Appendix B), a modified 15 question Remote Associates Test (see

Appendix D), and the Set daily puzzle.

Design

A within-subject design was used, as subjects were observed prior to any

treatment (pre-test), then they received a treatment, and finally they were

observed at post-test. The independent variable was the treatment of training on

Set game play or not, and the dependent variable was improved outcomes in

Stroop, Remote Associates, or Set game play.

J. M. B. Craig 14

Procedure

The subjects were all given the pre-test during the week of 11/15/2004 –

11/21/2004. Starting on 11/21/2004, the training treatment group began playing

the online Set puzzle every day and also participated in a few hours of Set card

game play. They were to record their times on each daily puzzle. The last training

puzzle was played on 12/10/2004, which was approximately 3 weeks from the

start of training. On this day both groups were given a post-test.

Results

All Stroop tasks had two trials. The first was a “practice” trial where the

words and colors (and later directions and animals) matched, and a second trial

where the Stroop effect was brought into play. The control group averaged 21.2

and 25.6 seconds and the training group averaged 21.5 and 26 seconds on the 2

trials of the Stroop Color/Word pre-test task. The average time difference

between the 2 trial runs was 4.4 seconds for the control group and 4.5 seconds

for the training group. The control group averaged 8.25 and the training group

averaged 9.5 correct responses on the 15 question Remote Associates pre-test

(see Appendix C). The control group averaged 7:30 and the training group

averaged 6:25 on the Set daily puzzle pre-test. Three subjects did not complete

the puzzle after ten minutes, so their time was recorded as 10 minutes.

While the training group was asked to record their times during the daily

puzzle task, the data is fairly incomplete as many subjects forgot at times, and a

computer glitch caused the loss of one subject’s entire time record. What

remains of the daily training data is presented in Appendix F.

J. M. B. Craig 15

The control group averaged 15 and 21.2 seconds and the training group

averaged 15 and 23 seconds on the 2 trials of the Stroop Color/Word post-test

task. The average time difference between the 2 trial runs was 6.2 seconds for

the control group and 8 seconds for the training group. The control group

averaged 10 and 13.6 seconds and the training group averaged 10 and 12.4

seconds on the directional Stroop task (see Appendix B). The control group

averaged 13 and 19.3 seconds and the training group averaged 13.9 and 17.7

seconds on the animal Stroop task (see Appendix B). The control group

averaged 10.75 and the training group averaged 12.2 correct responses on the

15 question Remote Associates post-test (see Appendix D). The control group

averaged 8:00 and the training group averaged 1:56 on the Set daily puzzle post-

test. One subject did not complete the puzzle after ten minutes, so his time was

recorded as 10 minutes. A summary of the pre and post-test results is available

in Appendix F.

Discussion

While the training group had a slightly smaller difference in time between

the trials of the Stroop Directional and Stroop Animal tasks, the control group had

a smaller difference in time between the trials of the Stroop Color/Word task.

These differences are small enough that they could likely be explained by

measuring inaccuracies inherent in the Stroop tasks used. In future trials, a more

precise method of task administration would be highly desirable.

Both groups showed slightly improved performance on the post-test of the

Remote Associates task. The improvement could be due to the fact that there

J. M. B. Craig 16

were 2 repeated word triads (both groups improved, on average, by between 2

and 3 correct answers) though that would not explain the rest of the

improvement. Another possibility is that all subjects improved because simply

taking the pre-test helped them to understand the idea of convergent thinking.

While the control group may not have been training on Set game play, they may

have been working though the ideas behind the Remote Associates task during

the experimental period. Finally, as this is a particularly small subject group and

the pre and post-tests took place several weeks apart, a host of other

confounding variables, such as what the subjects were doing in school or at

work, could have influenced their convergent thinking in the interim. The most

likely scenario is all subjects improved slightly because they understood the task

better for the post-test than they had for the pre-test.

There is a notable disparity between the training group and the control

group in Set game play of the daily puzzle. When the study began, the training

group completed the pre-test puzzle on average a minute faster than the control

group. There was over a 6-minute difference in average post-test puzzle times.

This indicates, as hypothesized, that training on Set game play does improve

performance on the daily puzzle.

While the results of this experiment are largely inconclusive, there are

several aspects that are worthy of further study. Firstly, a larger sample size with

more diverse attitudes towards problem solving and puzzle games would help

counter the overwhelmingly positive enthusiasm these subjects reported. It is

possible that an orientation towards puzzles invoked a ceiling effect in the

J. M. B. Craig 17

training. Secondly, more accurate versions of the Stroop tasks and a broader

selection of pre and post-test tasks would allow for further exploration of other

possible mechanisms for Set game play. Thirdly, more training time or possibly

more intense training might contribute to a more significant difference between

groups on some of the tasks. Finally, it is possible that because the training task

used the same Set cards with the same 4 attributes, the subjects were merely

improving at pattern perception. In order to ensure true practice of executive

functions, the attributes of the cards might need to vary across training trials.

Experiment 2 – The Think-aloud Study

Method

Participants

Two subjects participated in this study. They were both in the training

group. One was an expert Set player who has been playing the game, though not

on a regular basis, for nearly 8 years. The other participant was a novice set

player who had been training on Set for 2 weeks when this experiment was

conducted.

Materials, Design and Procedure

The standard 81 card Set deck was used for think-aloud game play. The

experiments consisted of 2 trials of a modified version of a two person Set game.

In both cases I was the second player. The subjects were to discuss each move

before they made it, describe their mental model of the Set game board, and try

as best they could to verbalize their strategies. Notes were taken during game

play and in an immediate follow-up discussion on strategies.

J. M. B. Craig 18

Results

The Novice Player

The novice Set player (NP) approached the game with a very specific

algorithm. NP would methodically search the board for sets of all ones, all twos,

and all threes. He would look for these types of sets by counting the number of

each type of card. If there were only 2 “ones”, or 2 red “ones “and” 2 green

“ones,” he would rule out the presence of a “ones” set. NP then continued this

process with the “twos” and “threes.”

When no sets of this type were found, NP would start with whatever

“number” cards were least represented on the board. Moving from left to right

he’d select a card from the least represented group (in this example a “one”), and

then select the nearest “two”. Since, mathematically speaking, any 2 cards plus

the appropriate third card define a set, he would look for the card that would

complete the particular set. So if he had a “one-squiggle-shaded-green” and a

“two-oval-open-red” he’d search for a “three-diamond-solid-purple.” If that card

was not on the board, he’d start with the same one, pair it with a new two, and

look for the third that would match. Once a set was found, three additional cards

were placed on the board and the process would start all over again.

It is interesting to note that throughout game play, NP primarily attended to

the number attribute of the Set cards. He would then examine, in shifting order,

shape and color. The last attribute he would consider was the pattern. This

attribute was greatly dwarfed by the other 3, to the point where all false sets NP

made contained pattern violations. Another point of interest is that in the

J. M. B. Craig 19

beginning of the game, NP completely reset his mental model of the board every

time 3 new cards were put into play. For example, if a set he had just taken had

no “ones” in it, and the 3 cards that replaced that set had no “ones” among them,

he would still start over and count how many “ones” were on the board after

every deal. As game play went on, however, he began to attend to this fact.

During one of the final deals NP remarked to me “there are no new ones on the

board, so I don’t need to look at that again.”

The Expert Player

The expert Set player (EP) approached the game with a variety of

strategies. When the cards were first dealt, he took a moment to size up the

board, and in the process picked up 2 sets having said almost nothing. When

questioned as to how he found the sets, he told me that the ones he instantly

sees are often in close proximity to each other. Sure enough, both sets he picked

out were clustered right next to each other on the game board.

When EP did not see a set right away he would analyze the board to rule

out what kinds of sets were not possible. He’d look at the attributes separately

but in rapid succession, such as “there’s not a lot of green on this board, but

there are a lot of solids and squiggles.” Each statement was referring to the same

group of cards but across their various attributes. For EP, while he would name

the attributes separately, the cards existed as all of their attributes

simultaneously. Once EP had identified there were “no reds” or “only 1 squiggle,”

he would no longer look for a whole class of set.

J. M. B. Craig 20

In regard to mental models of the Set game board, EP always kept the

current board state in mind while looking at the new cards I dealt. Sometimes

he’d be looking for a specific card he knew would complete a set, especially if the

other 2 cards were currently in close proximity to each other. He did this twice

during game play – called “set” before I had finished dealing the cards. When I

asked about this, he told me he knew which cards he was looking for and as

soon as I dealt them he had taken them.

Discussion

There are a few key differences in the novice and expert approaches to

Set strategy even within this limited subject pool. Generalizing from this very

small study, novices tend to search exhaustively for all possible sets, while

experts narrow in on the types of sets they can make on any particular game

board. Novices tend to see the cards as an ordered succession of attributes

while experts view the cards as composed of concurrent attributes. Finally,

novices tend to reconstruct their mental model of the board with each new deal,

while experts merely update their mental model with the most current

information.

The use of working memory is heavily implicated in the updating of the

mental model shown by EP. Towards the end of the game, NP began to engage

in this as well, though on a single-attribute basis. In either case, when a player

has shifted to this type of consistent representation, Set card game play might be

useful in training working memory. The representation of the attributes as either

successive or concurrent might also have some implications for task-switching

J. M. B. Craig 21

training, but this study did not deal with shifting in great depth. Further studies

are warranted to both explore the role of other executive functions in Set game

play and to gather more information on the variety of strategies used, including

how a complete novice might approach the game.

Summary and Conclusions

There is a strong belief among parents and teachers that playing the

game of Set helps to improve problem solving ability and strengthen critical

thinking skills. This is the first study that attempts to empirically address the

cognitive aspects of Set game play. While the results of the training study are

mostly inconclusive, several ideas for further study have already been discussed.

These include a broader subject pool, more accurate task measures, different

training regimens, and different attributes on training cards. In addition, studying

the near and far transfer possibilities of Set skills has great potential in linking Set

to more general “real world” applications. Finally, while the think-aloud study

provided a good basis for establishing novice and expert strategies in Set game

play, some work remains in this arena as well, particularly in the realm of the

complete novice. These ideas could all lead to a better understanding of the

executive functions involved in Set game play and a more meaningful attempt at

further training studies, an area of the field which has great potential. Targeting

the executive functions Set game play makes use of and crafting a more

nuanced training regimen is certainly an exciting and promising next step.

J. M. B. Craig 22

References

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D. C.: National Research Council.

Dempster, F. N., & Corkill, A. J. (1999). Interference and inhibition in cognition and behavior: Unifying themes for educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 11(1), 1-88.

Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (102-134). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H., & Westerberg, H. (2002) Training of Working Memory in Children with ADHD [Electronic version]. J Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(6), 781-91.

Leahy, T. H. & Harris, R. J. (2001). Learning and Cognition, 5th edition. New York: Prentice Hall.

Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220-232.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: A latent variable analysis [Electronic version]. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.

Olesen, P., Westerberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2004). Increased prefrontal and parietal activity after training of working memory [Electronic version]. Nature Neuroscience, 7(1), 75-79.

Quinn, A. L., Weening, F., & Koca Jr, R. M. (1999). Developing Mathematical Reasoning Using Attribute Games. Retrieved on December 10, 2004, from http://www.setgame.com/set/article_nctm.htm

Van Brink, D. (1997) The Search for Set. Retrieved on December 10, 2004, from http://set.omino.com/index.html

J. M. B. Craig 23

Appendix A – Participant Questionnaire – November 2004

1) Age: Sex: 2) Level of schooling completed:

3) Favorite (up to 3) subject(s) in school? List subject and gradelevel, aka high school or college:

4) Were you ever in an enrichment or gifted and talentedsection/program in elementary school?

4a) If so, was work with puzzles or logic problems involved? 4b) If not, were puzzles or logic problems part of your elementary

school curriculum?

5) Favorite (up to 3) board games:

6) Favorite (up to 3) computer games:

7) Have you ever played "Set" before?

On a scale of 1 to 5, where:

1----------2----------3----------4----------5

Strongly StronglyDisagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

For each statement, fill in the blank space with the number thatrepresents the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement.

a) I like to do crossword puzzles:

b) I consider myself to be creative:

c) I consider myself to be a good problem solver:

d) I like to play board games:

e) I am a good "on-your-feet" thinker:

f) I am a keen observer:

g) I am good with spatial relations:

h) I like to play computer games:

J. M. B. Craig 24

Appendix B – Stroop Tasks

Stroop Color/Word: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/ready.html

Directional Stroop: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/readyd.html

Animal Stroop: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/readya.html

Appendix C – Remote Associates Pre-test

Modified from: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/RATest.htm

01) Falling Actor Dust [ star ]02) Coin Quick Spoon [ silver ]03) Cracker Union Rabbit [ jack ]04) Manners Round Tennis [ table ]05) Salt Deep Foam [ sea ]06) Ache Hunter Cabbage [ head ]07) Barrel Root Belly [ beer ]08) Color Numbers Oil [ paint ]09) Ink Herring Neck [ red ]10) Measure Desk Scotch [ tape ]11) Board Magic Death [ black or game ]12) Lapse Vivid Elephant [ memory ]13) Magic Plush Floor [ carpet ]14) Envy Golf Bean [ green ]15) Sore Shoulder Sweat [ cold ]

Appendix D – Remote Associates Post-test

Modified from: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/RATest.htm and with thanks to Marie for one of them.

01) Falling Actor Dust [ star ]02) Blue Cottage Mouse [ cheese ]03) Widow Bite Monkey [ spider ]04) Rabbit Cloud House [ white ]05) Lick Sprinkle Mines [ salt ]06) Coin Quick Spoon [ silver ]07) Sandwich Golf Soda [ club ]08) Speak Money Street [ easy ]09) Hall Car Swimming [ pool ]

J. M. B. Craig 25

10) Cotton Bathtub Tonic [ gin ]11) Diamond Cap “Hot Dog” [ baseball ]12) Note Dive Chair [ high ]13) Shopping Washer Picture [ window ]14) Surprise Wrap Care [ package or present ]15) Chocolate Fortune Tin [ cookie ]

Appendix E – Set Game Resources

Set Game Homepage: http://www.setgame.com

Set Game Daily Puzzle: http://www.setgame.com/set/puzzle_frame.htm

J. M. B. Craig 26

Appendix F – Training Study Results

Stroop Color/Word - Control Group

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

WM JM SM LRSubjects

Time (seconds)

Pre-test SamePost-test SamePre-test DifferentPost-test Different

Stroop Color/Word - Training Group

05

1015202530354045

PM CC CJ GK WD KBSubjects

Time (seconds)

Pre-test SamePost-test SamePre-test DifferentPost-test Different

Remote Associates - Control Group

02468

10121416

WM JM SM LRSubjects

Correct

Pre-TestPost-Test

J. M. B. Craig 27

Remote Associates - Training Group

02468

10121416

PM CC CJ GK WD KBSubjects

Correct

Pre-TestPost-Test

J. M. B. Craig 28

Daily Puzzle Times - Training Group

0:00

2:24

4:48

7:12

9:36

12:00

14:24

11/21/0411/22/0411/23/0411/24/0411/25/0411/26/0411/27/0411/28/0411/29/0411/30/0412/1/0412/2/0412/3/0412/4/0412/5/0412/6/0412/7/0412/8/0412/9/04

Date

Time to Find Six Sets

KBWDGKCCPM

Daily Puzzle - Control Group

0:00

1:12

2:24

3:36

4:48

6:00

7:12

8:24

9:36

10:48

WM JM SM LRSubjects

TimePre-TestPost-Test

Daily Puzzle - Training Group

0:00

1:12

2:24

3:36

4:48

6:00

7:12

8:24

9:36

10:48

PM CC CJ GK WD KBSubjects

TimePre-TestPost-Test