Week 10
Problem Solving…
Problem Solving
GROUND
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
Problem Solving
What is it? Goal-directed, means-end behaviours
When can we do it?8 months (Piaget:object retrieval)7 months (Diamond) 4 months (Baillargeon)BUT…Have to make problem relevant and
interesting!
Topics
Inducing rules
Planning
Reasoning by analogy
Formal reasoning
Bilingualism II
Inducing Rules in an Oddity task
One of these things is not like the other…
One of these things is not like the other:
Pike
Plate
Pleather
One of these things is not like the other:
Piaget
Information Processing
Connectionism
Inducing Rules in oddity tasks
Kids can learn to do this at a very young age with concrete objects
Move from needing hints (<6), to concrete items (6+), to more abstract sets of items
Adults typically get it on their own WCST eg
Siegler’s Theory
Believes that all of cognitive development can be explained by improvement in problem solving abilities, with increasingly powerful use of rules
Scale Problem What way would the scale tilt?
Siegler’s Theory
Believes that all of cognitive development can be explained by improvement in problem solving abilities, with increasingly powerful use of rules
Used Rule-Assessment approach to determine what rules children were using
Siegler’s Theory
Predicted 4 identifiable rules that could be used
1. If weight is same, balance; If different, side with more weights goes down
2. Same as 1, but if weight is equal, then farthest from center goes down
3. Can use both above, but if there is a conflict (more weights on side that is closer to middle), then guess
4. If situation above arises, calculate torque (weight X distance), and side with greater torque will go down
Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4
Balance 100 100 100 100
Weight 100 100 100 100
Distance 0 “balance” 100 100 100
Conflict-W 100 100 33 (chance) 100
Conflict-D 0
“right down”
0
“right down”
33 (chance) 100
Conflict-B 0
“right down”
0
“right down”
33 (chance) 100
Balance
Weight
Distance
Conflict - Weight
Conflict - Distance
Conflict - Balance
Siegler’s Theory of problem solving
Adaptive Strategy Choice Model All 4 strategies are available at all times
They compete to be used
Younger = more perceptual
Applies to many other aspects of problem solving
Card Sorting TaskPre-switch Condition
Card Sorting TaskPost-switch Condition
Following Rules:Cognitive Control and Complexity Theory
Devised by Zelazo and colleagues
2-year-olds can sort cards by 1 rule, but not 2
2 ½ can sort by concrete categories but not abstract
3 years can sort a deck into 2 boxes, but can’t switch into opposite boxes (DCCS)
Show an Abulic Dissociation
The CCC
Perseverate on pre-switch if: rules repeated on every single trial after only one trial regardless of shape or colour on card regardless of order
Why?
The CCC Rule Hierarchy
If colour game and
Blue Red
Then hereThen here
Then here Then here
If shape game and
Circle Square
Cannot reflect on rule system as a whole and use it all.
Planning (A kind of problem-solving)
3 characteristics of planningOccurs in novel and complex situationsWe plan opportunistically, in an abstract
way, with gaps in the plan so as to revise as we go along
Planning has both costs and benefits, in that it saves time, but is cognitively demanding
Planning (A kind of problem-solving)
Children have trouble planning ahead until the age of 5
5 reasons why:1. Inhibitory failure
2. Tend to act impulsively, rather be quick than correct
3. Planning seen as difficult and time-consuming
4. Not always rewarded for it
5. Just take task for what it is, fun!
E.g.: Tower of Hanoi
3-year-olds can solve two disc problems, but just cheat if they confront barrier
Can solve longer problems with increasing age
Older children know to establish subgoals
Even at age 6, have a hard time moving away from main goal when completing subgoal
Reasoning by Analogy
Examples:
Your brain as a computer…
Rice:Sake :: Grape:??????????
Car:Road :: Boat:??????
Bird: Nest :: Dog:??????
Analogical Reasoning
Goswami: Can do so from very young Relational Primacy Hypothesis (Chen,
Sanchez, & Campbell, 1997)29% solved 1st problem, 43% solved the 2nd,
and 67% solved the 3rd
Factors affecting Analogical Reasoning
Relational Shift Shift from focus on perceptual features to focus on
relational similarities
Knowledge What we know can help us
Eg. Goswami’s Three little bears task
Metacognition Training improves performance
Eg. Brown & Kane
Formal Reasoning
Where form of argument and logical, not actual, truth must prevail
This is very difficult until teens, sometimes beyond (Piaget was right!)
We use syllogisms to examine this form of logic
Formal Reasoning Examples
If there is a cow, then there are horns.
There is a cowThere are horns
True or false?
Formal Reasoning examples
If there is a cow then there are horns.
There is no cow.There are no horns.
True or false?
Formal Reasoning
Adults go through all possible combinations of conditions
to arrive at the correct answer
< 10 or 11 children fail to consider all possibilities
But… we can all do badly on false implication conditions!
However, sometimes young children can solve these syllogisms
Hawkins’ study
3 kinds of syllogismCongruent with reality
Bears have big teeth, animals with big teeth can’t read books. Do bears read books?
Incongruent with realityGlasses bounce when they fall, everything that
bounces is made of rubber. Are glasses made of rubber?
FantasyAll Zaphods are plaid. Plaid things have
webbed feet. Do Zaphods have webbed feet?
Hawkins’ study
4- and 5-year-olds can do congruent syllogism
But not incongruent: couldn’t ignore what they know to be true
They all did well on the fantasy items
Relate children’s problem solving to other cognitive developmental feats…move away from perceptual towards conceptual, can handle more and more info with age…
Bilingualism II
Remember: No reliable effects of a second language on any forms of actual language development
Effects are seen on metalinguistic tasks: Sun/Moon Grammaticality Moving Word
Bilingual children and problem solving
What do these tasks have in common?
They all contain some kind of distracting information!
There are no differences on tasks with no distracting information
Move away from language to lower-level cognitive processes…
Bialystok & Majumder, 1998
Piaget’s Water Level task Contains misleading info
Block Design Contains misleading info
Noelting Juice task Does not contain misleading info
Children were English, Chinese-English, and Bengali-English
Water Level Problem
Block Design Task
Noelting Juice Task
Results of Tasks
**
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Water Level Block Design Noelting
MonolingualBilingual
* p < .05
Card Sorting TaskPre-switch Condition
Card Sorting TaskPost-switch Condition
Mean number correct in Post-Switch
0
2
4
6
8
10
4 Years 5 Years
Age
Nu
mb
er C
orr
ect
MonolingualBilingual
Bialystok & Codd (1997)
Towers Task (Duplo VS Lego)Contains distracting info
Sharing TaskDoes not contain distracting info
Towers Task: Congruent Condition
Towers Task:Congruent Condition 2
Towers Task:Congruent Condition 3
Towers Task:Incongruent Condition
Sharing Task
Children are told:
Here are 2 friends. Here are some cookies. Your job is to give everyone some cookies, and you have to make sure you all have the same number of cookies. Make sure you count them out!
Results
(Surprise) Bilingual children outperformed the monolingual children on the incongruent conditions of the Towers task
Both groups did the same on the congruent conditions as well as on the sharing task
Simon Effect
Stimuli contain target and position cues, and subjects must ignore position
Simon effect is RT cost when position leads to the incorrect solution
When you see a red square, press the button on the left.
When you see a green square, press the button on the right.
L R
Simon Task by Group
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Congruent Incongruent
MonolingualBilingual
Condition: F (1,32) = 4.19, p < .04
Group: F (1,32) = 7.40, p < .01
** **
Features of Tasks Showing Bilingual Advantage
Misleading cue
Choice between (apparently) valid options
Problem domain irrelevant
What is the advantage?
Bilingual children excel in situations where there are 2 pieces of conflicting information, one very salient, but incorrect, and one less salient, but correct
They do not excel if the task is too difficult, or if there is no conflicting information inherent in display
Interpretation of Advantage
2 languages are on line at all timesMust suppress one to use the otherThese children have continual life long practice in cognitive inhibition!These effects are manifest throughout the lifespan, and may even even help delay cognitive aging (Bialystok, Craik, Klien, & Viswanathan, 2004)
MEG evidence…
