Luchins’ Einstellung (Set) Experiments
Abraham S. Luchins (1942) was interested in the following: “Several problems,
all solvable by one somewhat complex procedure, are presented in succession.
If afterward a similar task is given which can be solved by a more
direct and simpler method, will the individual be blinded to this more direct
possibility?” Participants may develop a particular approach to a class of
similar problems. After the problems are changed so that this set (as in mindset)
is no longer the most efficient method of solution, will people hang on to
the set, or will they recognize the more direct method? The German word for
set is Einstellung; our everyday problem-solving frequently involves an Einstellung:
We try our habitual ways of attacking a particular problem even
though we may have more efficient procedures readily available to us.
Luchins usually used the water-jar problem in his experiments. People
were given two or three jars of water of varying capacity and were supposed
to figure out how to obtain a required amount of water by performing arithmetic
operations on the volumes the jars would hold. For example, if jar A
holds 6 gallons, jar B holds 15 gallons, and jar C holds 2 gallons, how can
you obtain exactly 7 gallons? In this example, you could fill jar B (15), then
fill jars A (6) and C (2) from the contents of B, leaving 7 gallons in B. The
basic 11 problems appear in Table 13.1. To become familiar with the Einstellung
effect, solve all 11 problems in order before you continue reading.
In Luchins’ first study, the first problem served as an illustration of the
task. The appropriate solution is to take the larger jar (29) and subtract the
smaller jar (3) three times to get the desired amount (20). Participants next
solved problems 2 through 6, which may be considered set-establishing problems,
because they all are most easily solved by the same method of solution.
In each case, the solution is to take the largest jar (always the middle
one), subtract the first jar once, and finally subtract the last jar twice. If we
label the jars A, B, and C from left to right, then the set the subjects developed
for problems 2 through 6 can be represented as B _ A _ 2C.
TABLE 13.1
Water-Jar Problems Luchins Used in His Einstellung Experiments
Given the following empty jars as measures
Problem A B C
Obtain the required
amount of water
1 29 3 20
2 21 127 3 100
3 14 163 25 99
4 18 43 10 5
5 9 42 6 21
6 20 59 4 31
7 23 49 3 20
8 15 39 3 18
9 28 76 3 25
10 18 48 4 22
11 14 36 8 6
Besides the experimental or Einstellung group, there were two others.
One group, a control of sorts, began with problems 7 and 8 so that the
experimenter could see how the group would solve them with no induced
set solution. Another group was treated in the same manner as the Einstellung
group, except that before problem 7, each participant wrote “Don’t be
blind” on the response sheet. Luchins had the participants write this phrase
so that they would be cautious and not be foolish when they solved subsequent
problems. Thus, the primary dependent variable was the number of
participants using the Einstellung solution (B _ A _ 2C) on problems 7
and 8, even though problems 7 and 8 had much more efficient and direct
solutions (A _ C for problem 7 and A þ C for problem 8). The results
were that none of the control participants used the inefficient solution in
solving problems 7 and 8; 81 percent of the Einstellung participants used
the inefficient solution on 7 and 8; and the “Don’t be blind” warning
reduced the use of the Einstellung solution to about 55 percent. Furthermore,
after doing problem 9, which cannot be solved via the set-inducing
method, 63 percent of the Einstellung participants continued with the old
solution on problems 10 and 11, whereas only 30 percent of the “Don’t be
blind” participants reverted to the set solution.
How reliable are the results from this experiment? Luchins’ work was
published before the use of statistical tests was common in psychological
research, so statistical tests to establish reliability were not performed. However,
such tests were largely unnecessary in this case, because Luchins provided
us with evidence that his results could be replicated in other
experiments. Many experiments are included in the original report, and the
results are in general agreement with the Einstellung results just outlined.
Altogether, Luchins tested more than 9,000 participants in his original studies.
As noted previously, replication is an exceptionally convincing way to
demonstrate the reliability of a phenomenon—the Einstellung effect has
experimental reliability.
There are three types of replications: (a) direct, (b) systematic, and
(c) conceptual. Direct replication is simply repeating an experiment as closely
as possible with as few changes as possible in the method. Luchins replicated
his original experiment several times with only slight changes in the
participant population tested; such experiments constitute cases of direct
replication.
In a systematic replication, all sorts of factors are changed that the investigator
considers irrelevant to the phenomenon of interest. If the phenomenon
is not illusory, it will survive these changes. So, for example, in a systematic
replication of Luchins’ experiments, we might vary the nature of the problems
so that the set involves a different rule (or several different rules), the instructions
are varied, the type of participants is varied, and so on. The Einstellung
effect should be robust across all of these manipulations. If it is not, then we
have found that variables previously thought to be irrelevant are actually
important. This is crucial knowledge.
In a conceptual replication, we attempt to replicate a phenomenon or
concept in an entirely different way. In the language of Chapter 1, we simply
308 PART 4 • The Practice of Scientific Psychology
use a different operational definition of the concept. Luchins examined other
tasks besides the water-jar problem to establish the Einstellung phenomenon
in diverse situations. He used series of geometry problems, words hidden in
letters, and paper mazes. Although the operational definitions of a problem
and of a solution changed from experiment to experiment, in each case participants
solved several problems that had a unique solution before they came
to the critical problems that could be solved either by the Einstellung solution
or by a much more simple and direct solution. Just as in the water-jar experiments,
participants usually used the old, circuitous solution and ignored the
more efficient solution. These experiments constitute conceptual replications
of the concept of Einstellung. Although Luchins’ classic experiment is more
than a half-century old, it is still being replicated in modern times (Schooler,
Ohlsson, & Brooks, 1993) and cited in current literature (Bilalic_, McLeod,
& Gobet, 2008).
You should note the following carefully: The problem of reliability of
results is interwoven with the problem of generalizability and validity (see
the Application section). In general, researchers need to be careful about
assuming that results will generalize to other subject populations. Most psychology
experiments are conducted using white, middle-class college students
as the subjects—hardly a representative group! College students are
often the subjects of choice due to the ease with which they can be recruited
for experiments (perhaps you are required to participate in experiments as
part of your course requirements). While much research using college students
does indeed replicate, we should be careful about assuming replication.
For example, psychologists have begun to study how non-Western
cultures are different from those traditionally studied in psychology. Not
only does self-concept vary in Eastern cultures (for example, Markus &
Kitayama, 1991), so does the way people typically approach and solve problems
(for example, Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Differences
occur not only across cultures but also across ages. For example, older
adults’ performance often varies depending on the type of material used
in the study. One study of off-topic speech found that older adults used
more off-topic speech than younger adults but only when the older adults
were discussing their own lives and not when they were describing pictures
(James, Burke, Austin, & Hulme, 1998). Similarly, results on older adult
conformity depend on whether the stimuli are emotionally meaningful
(Pasupathi, 1999).
Psychologists are often eager to design interventions aimed at reducing
the effects of aging; before doing so, however, they should be careful that
their failure to obtain similar results with older adults is not simply
due to the materials used in the experiment. As we progress from direct to
systematic to conceptual replication, we show not only reliability but also
increasing validity. Are we studying something that ties in with or is related
to our knowledge of other psychological phenomena in a reasonable way? A
conceptual replication is closely related to converging operations, which are
procedures that validate a hypothetical construct used to explain behavior by
eliminating alternative explanations.
Question #1. Reread the description of Luchins’ experiment outlined in Table 13.1. There seem to be several problems with that study; see whether you can pinpoint two or three of them. As a hint, consider the following questions: Did Luchins use an appropriate control group? If not, what should be the control condition? Are there points in the study that require counterbalancing? What additional dependent variables might have been informative?
(response must be 300 minimum)
1.
Questions #2: As a final, capstone question for this class, please consider all of the issues with which we wrestle in our society. Choose one and describe how we could address and answer this issue to some degree through the use of psychological research. (please not this question is not in any reference to the question listed above, it is a whole separate statement and the two do not correspond with one another.)
(response must be 300 minimum)
2.
Classmates response #1: Hello classmates and facilitator. I do not know about everyone else, but I had a really hard time trying to find the wrong things in this experiment. I believe that it is true that people tend to use the practice that is most common to them when solving problems. It seems easiest for them. The one thing I did have a problem with was the control group. I see that the control group only had one difference and that was that they were left out of one part of the experiment. I do not think that this is a very good control group. The way I would have done the experiment would be really different. First the control group would have many options for solving the problems on the tests before the initial experiment. Second the experiment group would only be given this one form of solving problems on the tests before the initial experiment. Then I would go about seeing how these two groups solved the water jar problem and analyze the results. I do not believe there would be much difference in the results due to the fact that I agree with the conclusion and it has been seen many times and it is also how I go about solving problems. I always choose the way I know best.
(Please respond to what the class mates have written in an educational and fine-tuned response in 220-word minimum)
1.
Classmates response #2: Hello classmates and facilitator. First let me say that this was really hard for me to think of something in society that we could address with psychological research. I finally came to the conclusion that the one thing I see a lot of is anger. I sometimes try to think of experiments that can be done where you monitor a persons brain activity as they get angrier and angrier and figure out how to control triggers in general. This experiment could be a little dangerous to the experimenter due to the fact that they are doing things to cause the subject to become enraged. I want to find a way that would help people deal with their rage and control the chemicals in the brain that cause this rage to occur. One experiment I have in mind would be to put people in rooms and have them watch something that makes them angry and then use a different source to incite anger and keep doing this with different things until we have induced complete rage in a person and watch the chemicals in the brain and how they react. This way we could know what chemical there is too little of or too much of when someone is in a rage and maybe we could come up with a medication that would control this chemical.
(Please respond to what the class mates have written in an educational and fine-tuned response in 220-word minimum)
2.
Classmates response #3: The impact of divorce on children: Divorcing parents want to reduce the impact on their children. The Alexander House (2014) states there are 2.3 million marriages a year, with over 1.2 million divorces–a failure rate of over 50%. Statistically, 40% of first marriages, 60% of second, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce. The failure to protect our children is a national crisis. This article stated that over one million children are impacted by divorce each year. Divorcing parents want to reduce the impact on their children, whether the children are young or already adults. The best way to do this is to recognize how the divorce is likely to affect your children, and then take steps to alleviate their pain and uncertainty.
Parents can understand how divorce affects children through psychological research:
Researchers have completed volumes, studying and analyzing the effect of divorce on children. Studies examining the children of divorce have found that most suffer a sense of loss and that the feelings can manifest in multiple different ways, depending on the children’s ages and unique personalities, as well as on how the parents handle the divorce. Younger children may regress in areas such as sleeping and toilet training, or throw more tantrums. School-age and teenage children may show symptoms of depression, rebel against discipline, or change their eating and sleeping habits. Recent research has shown that adult children of divorce have higher divorce rates than adults with parents in stable marriages – and even those who remain married report they are have less trust for their spouses than people whose parents have remained married. Through psychological research a parent can understand how divorce affects children, so they can take an active role in easing their children’s pain and reducing negative feelings and behaviors.
(Please respond to what the class mates have written in an educational and fine-tuned response in 220-word minimum)
3.
Classmates response #4: I would like delve deeper into the issue of sexual promiscuity in teens. Young men and women having unprotected sexual relationships is damaging the moral fiber of our country. Children are a precious and important responsibility. Children having children before they are emotionally or financially able is crippling to them, their families and society in general. I would be interested in conducting an experiment with teens parented by young parents and teens parented by older parents. Both groups with two parents in the home to determine the level of sexual education the teens have and their feelings on the risky behavior of unprotected sexual activity. I firmly believe that children need to be children and enjoy their early years as much as possible. Life is fast enough growing up does not have to mean unnecessary burdens too early.
(Please respond to what the class mates have written in an educational and fine-tuned response in 220-word minimum)
4.
