Functional fixedness (or functional fixity or functional embeddedness) is a cognitive bias that limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used.
Introduction to Functional FixednessEdit
The concept of functional fixedness originated in Gestalt Psychology, which is a movement in psychology that emphasizes wholistic processing where the whole is seen as being separate from the sum of its parts. Duncker defined functional fixedness as being a "mental block against using an object in a new way that is required to solve a problem." This "block" then limits that ability of an individual to use the components given to them to make a specific item, as they can not move past the original intention of the object.
Experimental paradigms typically involve solving problems in novel situations in which the subject has to use of a familiar object in an unfamiliar context. The object may be familiar from the subject’s past experience or from previous tasks within an experiment. The end result is that the subject typically unable to overcome the bias which hinders or completely prevents the subject from completing the task rather than making use of the available objects in a novel but more efficacious manner.
For example, if someone needs a paperweight, but they only have a hammer, they may not see how the hammer can be used as a paperweight. This inability to see a hammer's use as anything other than pounding nails, is functional fixedness. The person couldn't think of how to use the hammer in a way other than its traditional function.
When tested, 5 year old children show no signs of functional fixedness. Apparently this is because they have had less experience with the use of various objects (German & Defeyter, 2000).
Examples in ResearchEdit
Duncker (1945) Edit
Candle Box Edit
In a classic experiment demonstrating functional fixedness, Duncker (1945) gave participants a candle, a box of nails, and several other objects, and asked them to attach the candle to the wall so that it did not drip onto the table below. Duncker found that participants tried to nail the candle directly to the wall or to glue it to the wall by melting it. Very few of them thought of using the inside of the nail box as a candle-holder and nailing this to the wall. In Duncker’s terms the participants were “fixated” on the box’s normal function of holding nails and could not re-conceptualise it in a manner that allowed them to solve the problem.
More recently, Frank and Ramscar gave a written version of the candlebox problem to undergraduates at Stanford. When the problem was given with identical instructions to those in the original experiment, 23% of students were able to solve the problem. For another group of students, the noun phrases such as "box of matches" were underlined and for a third the nouns (ex. "box") were underlined. For these two groups, 55% and 47% were able to solve the problem effectively. In a follow up experiment, all the nouns except box were underlined and similar results were produced. The authors concluded that students' performance was contingent on their representation of the lexical concept 'box' rather than instructional manipulations. The ability to overcome functional fixedness was contingent on having a flexible representation of the word box which allows students to see that the box can be used when attaching a candle to a wall.
Tumor Diagram Edit
In one of Karl Duncker's experiments he created a diagram representing a tumor problem he had come up with. The diagram consisted of an x-ray going through the tumor surrounded by healthy tissue, which was represented by an arrow going through a black dot inside of a circle. He explained the problem to the subjects and showed the diagram to some and not others. When the diagram was not shown to the subjects, 37% managed to create the correct solution, but when the diagram was shown, only 9% could correctly come up with the solution.
When Adamson (1952) replicated Duncker's box experiment, Adamson split participants into 2 experimental groups: preutilization and no preutilization. In this experiment, when there is preutilization, meaning when objects are presented to participants in a traditional manner (materials are in the box, thus using the box as a container), participants are less likely to consider the box for any other use, whereas with no preutilization (when boxes are presented empty), participants are more likely to think of other uses for the box. This showed that preutilization plays a part in functional fixedness.
Birch and Rabinowitz Edit
Birch and Rabinowitz (1951) adapted the two-cord problem from Maie (1930, 1931), where subjects would be given 2 cords hanging from the ceiling, and 2 heavy objects in the room. They are told they must connect the cords, but they are just far enough apart that one cannot reach the other easily. The solution was to tie one of the heavy objects to a cord and be a weight, and swing the cord as a pendulum, catch the rope as it swings while holding on to the other rope, and then tie them together. The participants are split into 3 groups: Group R, which completes a pretask of completing an electrical circuit by using a relay, Group S, which completes the circuit with a switch, and Group C which is the control group given no pretest experience. Group R participants were more likely to use the switch as the weight, and Group S were more likely to use the relay. Both groups did so because they were previous experience led them to use the objects a certain way, and functional fixedness did not allow them to see the objects as being used for another purpose.
Current Conceptual Relevance Edit
Functional Fixedness Universal?Edit
We may ask ourselves if functional fixedness varies across environments, cultures, or history. In a recent study, preliminary evidence supporting the universality of functional fixedness was found (German & Barret, 2005). The study’s purpose was to test if individuals from non-industrialized societies, specifically with low exposure to “high-tech” artifacts, demonstrated functional fixedness. The study tested "The Shuar", hunter-horticulturalists of the Amazon region of Ecuador, and compared them to a control baseline condition of participants to provide these results. The Shuar community had only been exposed to a limited amount of industrialized artifacts, such as machetes, axes, cooking pots, nails, shotguns, and fishhooks, all considered “low-tech”. Two tasks were assessed to participants for the study: the box task, where participants had to build a tower to help a characer from a fictional storyline to reach another character with a limited set of varied materials; the spoon task, where participants were also given a problem to solve based on a fictional story of a rabbit that had to cross a river (materials were used to represent settings) and they were given varied materials including a spoon.In the box-task, participants were slower to select the materials than participants in control conditions, but no difference in time to solve the problem was seen. In the spoon task, participants were slower in selection and completion of task. Results showed that Individuals from non-industrial (“technologically sparse cultures”) were susceptible to functional fixedness. They were faster to use artifacts without priming than when design function was explained to them. This occurred even though participants were less exposed to industrialized manufactured artifacts, and that the few artifacts they currently use were used in multiple ways regardless of their design.(German & Barret, 2005)
Following the Wrong Footsteps: Fixation Effects of Pictorial Examples in a Design Problem-Solving TaskEdit
Investigators examined in two experiments "whether the inclusion of examples with innappropiate elements, in addition to the instructions for a design problem, would produce fixation effects in students naive to design tasks" (Chrysikou, E.G., & Weisberg,R.W. 2005). They examined the inclusion of examples of innappropiate elements, by explicitly depicting problematic aspects of the problem presented to the students through example designs. They tested non-expert participants on three problem conditions: with standard instruction, fixated (with inclusion of problematic design), and defixated (inclusion of problematic esign accompanied with helpful methods). They were able to support their hypothesis by finding that a) problematic design examples produce significant fixation effects, and b) fixation effects can be diminished with the use of defixating instructions.
Following is one examples of the three problems used in experiment to understand more thoroughly the procedure of study. In "The Disposable Spill-Proof Coffee Cup Problem", adapted from Jansson & Smith, 1991, participants were asked to construct as many designs as possible for an inexpensive, disposable, spill-proof coffee cup. Standard Condition participants were presented only with instructions. In the fixated condition, participants were presented with instructions, the design presented below, and problems they should be aware of. Finally, in the defixated condition, participants were presented the same as other conditions in additon to suggestions of design elements they should avoid using. The other two problems included building a bike rack, and designing a container for cream cheese.
Techniques to Avoid Functional FixednessEdit
Overcoming Functional Fixedness in Science Classrooms with Analogical TransferEdit
Based on the assumption that students are functionally fixed, a study on analogical transfer in the science classroom shed light on significant data that could provide an overcoming technique for functional fixedness. The findings support the fact that students show positive transfer (performance) on problem solving after being presented with analogies of certain structure and format (Solomon, 1994). The present study expanded Duncker’s experiments from 1945, by trying to demonstrate that when students were "…presented with a single analogy formatted as a problem, rather than as a story narrative, they would orient the task of problem-solving and facilitate positive transfer" (Solomon, 1994). A total of 266 freshmen students from a high school science class participated in the study. The experiment was a 2x2 design where conditions: "task contexts" (type and format) vs. "prior knowledge" (specific vs. general) were attested. Students were classified into 5 different groups, where 4 were according to their prior science knowledge (ranging from specific to general), and 1 served as a control group (no analog presentation). The 4 different groups were then classified into "analog type and analog format" conditions, structural or surface types and problem or surface formats. Inconclusive evidence was found for positive analogical transfer based on prior knowledge, however groups did demonstrate variability. The problem format and the structural type of analog presentation showed the highest positive transference to problem solving. The researcher suggested then, that a well-thought and planned analogy relevant in format and type to the problem-solving task to be completed can be helpful for students to overcome functional fixedness. This study not only brought new knowledge about the human mind at work but also provides important tools for educational purposes and possible changes that teachers can apply as aids to lesson plans (Solomon, 1994).
One study suggests that functional fixedness can be combated by design decisions from functionally fixed designs so that the essence of the design is kept (Latour, 1994). This helps the subjects who have created functionally fixed designs understand how to go about solving general problems of this type, rather then using the fixed solution for a specific problem. Latour performed an experiment researching this by having software engineers analyze a fairly standard bit of code, the quicksort algorithm, and use it to create a partitioning function. Part of the quicksort algorithm involves partitioning a list into subsets so it can be sorted, the experimenters wanted to use the code from within the algorithm to just do the partitioning. To do this they abstracted each block of code in the function, discerning the purpose of it, and deciding if it is needed for the partitioning algorithm. This abstracting allowed them to reuse the code from the quicksort algorithm, to create a working partition algorithm without having to design it from scratch (Latour, 1994).
A comprehensive study exploring several classical functional fixedness experiments showed an overlying theme of overcoming prototypes. Those that were successful at completing the tasks had the ability to look beyond the prototype, or the original intention for the item in use. Conversely, those that could not create a successful finished product could not move beyond the original use of the item. It also seemed to be the case for functional fixedness categorization studies as well. Reorganization into categories of seemingly unrelated items was easier for those that could look beyond intended function. Therefore, there is a need to overcome the prototype in order to avoid functional fixedness. Carnevale suggests analyzing the object and mentally break it down into its components. After that is completed, it is essential to explore the possible functions of those parts. In doing so, an individual may familiarize themselves with new ways to use the items that are available to them at the givens. Individuals are therefore thinking creatively and overcoming the prototypes that limit there ability to successfully complete the functional fixedness problem (Carnevale, 1998).
Adamson, R.E. (1952). Functional Fixedness as related to problem solving: A repetition of three experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 288-291.
Birch, H.G., & Rabinowitz, H.S. (1951). The negative effect of previous experience on productive thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 121-125.
Carnevale, Peter J. (1998). Social Values and Social Conflict Creative Problem Solving and Categorization. "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", 74(5), 1300.
Coon, D. (2004) Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior Tenth Edition, Wadsworth/Thompson Learning www.wadsworth.com
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58:5 (Whole No. 270)
Frank, Michael C., and Michael Ramscar. “How do Presentation and Context Influence Representation for Functional Fixedness Tasks?” Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2003.
German, T.P., & Defeyter, M.A. (2000). Immunity to functional fixedness in young children. Psychonomic Bulliten & Review, 7(4), 707-712
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Solomon,I(1994). Analogical Transfer and Functional Fixedness" in the Science Classroom. 'Journal of Educational Research', 87(6),371-377.
Latour, Larry (1994). "Controlling Functional Fixedness: the Essence of Successful Reuse" http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~larry/latour/ECAI/paper-sent/paper-sent.html
Related Links Edit
|This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).|