Problem Solving

PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICAM
Experiment #1: Problem Solving

Submitted to: Ms Sidra Farooq

Submitted by: Zoha Fatima (BS PSY 3B)
Date of submission: 21st March 2023

Institute of Professional Psychology

Bahria University
Karachi.

1
Problem Solving

Table of Contents

Work Division ......................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................. 4

Explanation .............................................................................................. 5

Historical Background ............................................................................ 8

Method and Procedure ........................................................................... 9

Material and apparatus ............................................................................ 14

Introspective Report ............................................................................. 15

Discussion ............................................................................................... 16

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 18

References .............................................................................................. 19

2
Problem Solving

Work division:
Introduction by: Rija , Zoha , Areenah
Historical background by: Sumbul , Sowaeba , Iffat
Method and procedure by: Maryam , Maymoona , Zoha

3
Problem Solving

Experiment #1: Problem Solving

INTRODUCTION
Definitions:
Problem solving:
Definition #1

Problem solving is to discover knowledge and skills that reach the target country by interfering
with a set of processes and goals where the solution is unknown, unfamiliar, or reaching a new
state of goal (Jonassen, 2004; Inkinen, 2015).

Definition #2

Problem solving was defined as a behavioral process which (a) makes available a variety of
response alternatives for dealing with a problematic situation, and (b) increases the probability of
selecting the most effective response from among these alternatives.

(Thomas J D’zurilla, Marvin R Goldfried,1971)

Decision making:
Definition #1
Decision making is the study of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and
preferences of the decision maker. Making a decision implies that there are alternative choices to
be considered and in such cases we want not only to identify as many of these alternatives as
possible but choose the one that best fits our goals, objectives, desires, values and so on

(Harris, 1980)

Definition #2

How people make choices among desirable alternatives

(Ward Edward, 1954)

4
Problem Solving

Explanation:
Types of problems:

 Research Problem: A research problem is a statement about an area of concern, a

condition to be improved, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question that exists
in scholarly literature, in theory, or in practice that points to the need for meaningful
understanding and deliberate investigation.

 Knowledge Problem: knowledge problem is the argument that the data required for
rational economic planning are distributed among individual actors and thus unavoidably
exist outside the knowledge of a central authority.

 Troubleshoot Problem: Troubleshooting is a systematic approach to solving a

problem. The goal of troubleshooting is to determine why something does not work as
expected and how to resolve the problem.

 Mathematical Problem: A mathematical problem is a problem that can be

represented, analyzed, and possibly solved, with the methods of mathematics

 Resource Problems: A resource problem arises when Human needs are limited by the
resource available for their subsistence

 Social Problem: A social problem is any condition or behavior that has negative
consequences for large numbers of people and that is generally recognized as a condition
or behavior that needs to be addressed.

 Design Problem: An unsolved state or an issue that a system being designed needs to
take into consideration.

Types of information for problem solving:

Six step guide to help in problem solving

 Identify and Define the Problem: Step One is about diagnosing the problem – the
context, background and symptoms of the issue. Once the group has a clear grasp of
what the problem is, they investigate the wider symptoms to discover the implications
of the problem, who it affects, and how urgent/important it is to resolve the
symptoms.
 Analyze the problem: Problem analysis therefore involves identifying the overriding
problem and establishing the causes and effects related to that problem. A key

5
Problem Solving

element of this analysis will ensure that “root causes,” not just the symptoms of the
problem, are identified and subsequently addressed in the project design.

 Identify as many potential solutions as you can: Identify potential solutions,”

shows how to start the active search for a solution. Building on the diagnosis, it
explains how to frame the solution phase, develop a solution key question, and
capture it in a how card.

 Choose the best solution: eliminate unsuitable options by passing them through a
screening process. In this process we need to identify if the solutions meet all the
necessary and sufficient conditions and if they are feasible or not. Then compare
remaining solutions to figure out which should be implemented.

 Plan of Action: An action plan is a document that lists what steps must be taken to
achieve a specific goal. It breaks down the goal into actionable steps that can be
easily followed and tracked.

 Implement the solution: The last step in the problem-solving process is to execute
(or implement) your solution. In some cases that requires you “only” to convince
others that the solution you’ve identified is a good one. Other times, you’ll also get to
implement it, monitor its effectiveness, and take corrective actions as needed. Either
way, an essential part of the execution is to convince others that your conclusions are
valid, which will require you to communicate effectively.

Decision making styles:

 Reflexive style: It is a person who thinks fast and makes quick decisions without
getting all the information he needs or giving too much thought to the alternatives.

 Reflective style: Reflective decision maker is one who takes long time and analyses
the situation before making a decision.

 Consistent style: Balance between reflexive and reflective decision making is in

reasonable time.

 Analytical style: An analytic style decision maker is innovative and likes to analyze
large amounts of data before making a decision. This type of decision can be very
slow and time consuming.

6
Problem Solving

 Conceptual: Conceptual style decision makers like to look at problems from an

artistic angle. They are extremely creative and like to look for solutions that are
outside the box. A conceptual style decision maker will take risks and try to make
decisions that take a broad vision in problem solving.

 Behavioral style: People who use a behavioral decision making style are very
interested in making sure that everyone works well together and avoids conflict. They
are very persuasive talkers and are good at getting people to see things their way.

Leadership styles:

 Autocratic: leadership style keeps strict, close control over followers by keeping close
regulation of policies and procedures given to followers.

 Consultative: Consultative leadership is basically task oriented and always focuses on

the end result by using the skills of others in formulating plans and taking decisions. You
ask your team for information that would be helpful and for their opinions, either
individually or as a group, but you make the final decision.

 Participative: Participative leadership in its most effective form will let the talents and
potential skills of the team members to be made the best use of particularly when arriving
at decisions and taking the right course of action. The final decision will always be taken
by the leader.

 Laissez Faire: It is a type of leadership in which leaders allow group members to make
decisions. The leader is not the part of decision making process that leads to lower
productivity of group members.

Common mistakes in problem solving:

 Problem not well defined or is denied as a problem:

The way a problem is worded and understood has a huge impact on the number, quality,
and type of proposed solutions. As such, there is a lack of clarity in identification of the
problem or at times the denial of its existence as an issue.

 Goal and objective not clear.

7
Problem Solving

A lack of direction and unclear goals are among the largest reasons why problem solving
is not successful, there is inconsistency in the aims and purposes, while solving the
problem.

Historical background

Old research:
Openness and free information sharing amongst scientists are core norms of the scientific
community. This study presents the evidence of the efficacy of problem solving when disclosing
problem information. The method's application to 166 discrete scientific problems from the
research laboratory of 26 firms is illustrated. Problems were disclosed 80,000 independent
scientists from over 150 countries. Two types of analyses of application of broadcast search to
scientific problems were conducted first the determinants of successful problem resolution was
analyzed by examining the problem characteristics and the types of outside scientists attracted to
creating solutions. Second, we analyzed what determine whether an outside scientist created a
winning solution by his or her motivation and field of expertise and the problem solving process
used.

Results were that disclosure of problem information to a large group of outside solvers is an
effective means of solving scientific problems. Problem solving found to be associated with the
ability to attract specialized solvers with range of diverse scientific interests. Furthermore,
successful solvers solved problems at the boundary or outside of their fields of expertise,
indicating a transfer of knowledge from one field to others.

Recent research
A recent study aims to investigate the role of problem-solving ability on innovative behavior and
opportunity recognition in university students. This study argues that it is important for cognitive
abilities to be manifested as behavior so that students can develop opportunity recognition
ability. As there is not enough empirical research on whether problem solving ability can
influence innovative behavior and opportunity recognition abilities in students, so this study was
designed to find the relationship between them. The sample size of the study was 203, who were
recruited from Korean universities, studying entrepreneurship courses. The result of this study
showed that problem solving ability positively influenced innovative behavior and opportunity
recognition.
(Ji Young Kim and Dae Soo Choi et al.,2018).

Problem:

8
 Problem Solving

To compare problem solving behavior of subjects working alone and in a group situation

Hypothesis:
There will be difference in performance of subjects working alone and in a group situation

Independent variable:
The setting (group or individual) and tasks given

Dependent variable:
The problem solving ability, decision making styles, time taken and efficiency

Method and procedure:

Condition 1: (Group Setting)

Task1: Group Motor Activity (Traffic Jam)

In this task, we were asked to exchange places in the shortest number of moves possible. A
movement forward one block is called "move" and a movement backward is called "slide". It is a
"jump" when two people facing each other cross the other to the next block.

Rules:
 If the space in front of you is empty, you may move forward to it. This is referred to as a
slide.
 You may jump the person in front of you and move into the empty space if there is an
empty space in front of you, unless you are both facing in the same direction.

Subjects name Age Gender Qualificatio Decision Leadership Total time

n Making styles styles taken
1. Maryam 20 F 4th Sem Reflective Consultative 1:47
2. Sowaeba 20 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 1:47
3.Sumbul 21 F 4th Sem Consistent Participative 1:47
4.Maymoona 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 1:47
5.Rija 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 1:47
6.Iffat 19 F 4th Sem Consistent Participative 1:47
7. Areenah 21 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 1:47
8. Zoha 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 1:47

Total Moves: 11 Total Slides: 4 Total Jumps: 16

9
 Problem Solving

Task 2: Group Abstract Problem (Syllogisms)

Deductive Reasoning (Syllogistic reasoning):

We were given 20 syllogisms for this task. Each syllogism had a major, minor, and concluding
premise. We were required to read and evaluate the syllogisms. If the conclusion was correct, we
would have marked it as positive; otherwise, we marked it as negative. We did this individually
at first, and then when we had completed all the syllogisms, we did the reasoning together to see
if we all agreed on it and had the same answers.

Subjects name Age Gender Qualificatio Decision Leadership Total time

n Making styles styles taken
1. Maryam 20 F 4th Sem Reflective Consultative 50 mins
2. Sowaeba 20 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 50 mins
3.Sumbul 21 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 50 mins
4.Maymoona 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 50 mins
5.Rija 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 50 mins
6.Iffat 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 50 mins
7. Areenah 21 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 50 mins
8. Zoha 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 50 mins

Task 3: Group Social and Ethical Problem

We were given 5 cases with ethical problems. We had to identify the problem in the given cases
and analyze it by answering the 5 Ws (why,when,where,who,what). Then we had to find new
potential solutions. We wrote the solutions and discussed them and chose one best solution that
everyone agreed upon. In the last part, we had to give a plan B if the previous solution did not
work out.

Subjects name Age Gender Qualificatio Decision Leadership Total time

n Making styles styles taken
1. Maryam 20 F 4th Sem Reflective Consultative 27 mins
2. Sowaeba 20 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 27 mins
3.Sumbul 21 F 4th Sem Consistent Participative 27 mins
4.Maymoona 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Consultative 27 mins
5.Rija 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 27 mins
6.Iffat 19 F 4th Sem Consistent Participative 27 mins
7. Areenah 21 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 27 mins
8. Zoha 19 F 4th Sem Reflective Participative 27 mins

Condition 2: Individual Setting

10
Problem Solving

Experimenter ‘A’:
This condition was by the Experimenter A in the individual setting, and consisted of 4 Tasks.

Task 1: Motor Task

This first task consisted of 8 coins, which were then placed in a row, with 4 consecutive heads to
the right, followed by 4 consecutive tails to the left (T T T T H H H H). The participant was
instructed that they had 4 moves to attempt to rearrange the coins so that they alternated heads
and tails in a continuous row (T H T H T H T H). A move was two coins that were adjacent to
each other moved together to another spot in the arrangement. The coins being moved could not
be split and rearranged, the order of the pair of coin may not be reserved while they are moved,
nor may they be turned over. If the participant is unable to solve within 4 moves, the coins are
rearranged to their original order, and the second trial will begin. The amount of trials and
amount of time taken by the participant are both noted.

Task 2: Abstract Problem

The second task was the abstract problem. The participant was told to arrange four 9s (9 9 9 9) in
such a manner, using the arithmetic operations, that they would equal 100. The participant had to
perform this task mentally, and only depend on their abstract skills to solve it. The participants
were not given any writing material either. For this task, the amount of trials was not noted; only
the amount of time taken.

Task 3: Imagery Problem

The third task was the imagery problem where the participant had to use their visualization skills
to construct the answer in their head. The participant was presented with the following situation.
“Imagine a cube 4 inches square. The cube is then painted white all over the outside. If the cube
were to be cut into 1 inch cubes, how many would have 3 white sides, how many would have 2
white sides, how many would have 1 white side, and how many would have 0?”. This activity
did not have any trials; once the participant stated their answer, the activity would end,
regardless of whether their answer is correct or not. For this task as well, amount of time is
noted.

Task 4: Social and Ethical Problems

The last task was the socio-ethical problem. The participant was presented with a scenario and
they had to respond according to how they would imagine themselves acting in that scenario.
The scenario was “If you were a manufacturer making a product which everyone needs would
you make it as well as possible so it would never wear out or would you make it so it would not
last long in order to increase sales?”. Their answer was noted, as well as the time taken for them
to give their response.

Experimenter ‘B’:

11
Problem Solving

Task 1: Individual Motor Task (T Puzzle)

For the first task all the experimenter B’s were instructed to draw and cut out a T from a blank
paper. The cutout of T was further cut into 6 different shapes and was supposed to be rearranged
by the participant.
The participant was given instructions that they had a total of 4 moves to rearrange the different
cutouts and form the letter T. The number of trials for every 4 moves was noted until they were
successful in constructing the letter T. Moreover, the time taken for every trial was also being
noted.

Task 2: Individual Abstract Problem

The second task was an abstract problem where the ability to analyze and solve complex
problems was being measured. The participant was shown a specific addition sum which
consisted of letters.

S E N D

+ M O R E

M O N E Y

The participant was instructed that they had to assign and replace the letter with a digit inorder to
satisfy the addition problem. The participant was allowed to use a paper and a pencil for this
task. There were certain conditions that they were supposed to keep in mind while solving this
task;
● Same numbers could not be assigned to more than 2 letters.
● Negative numbers could also be used (only informed when the participant asked)

This task also required the experimenter to measure the time taken by the participant but this
time the trials were not noted.

Task 3: Individual Imagery Problem

12
 Problem Solving

The third task was an Imagery problem where the participants were supposed to answer the
question which was verbalized by the experimenter by visualizing a picture in their mind. The
question went like;
● A cube is painted red and then cut into 1000 identical smaller cubes. How many of
these cubes are painted red on at least two faces?

The exact same answer of the participant was noted as there was no criteria to mark the answer
right or wrong. The amount of time taken was measured whereas the number of trials were not
supposed to be noted in this task.

Task 4: Individual Social Problem

The fourth task was a social problem where the participants were supposed to answer a scenario
based question which was also verbalized by the experimenter just like the third task. The
question went like;
● In your dealing with others in business or professional activities could you justify
staying merely within the letter of law?

The exact same answer of the participant was noted as there were no criteria to mark the answer
right or wrong. The amount of time taken was measured whereas the number of trials was not
noted.

Individual setting: (Experimenter ‘B’)

Task 1: Motor Task
T Puzzle
Subjects Age Gender Qualification Decision Total time taken
name Making styles
th
Sumbul 21 F 4 Semester Conceptual 3 mins 40 sec

Task 2: Abstract Problem

Subjects Age Gender Qualification Decision Total time taken
name Making styles
Sumbul 21 F 4th Semester Analytical 6 mins 2 secs

13
 Problem Solving

Task 3: Imaginary Problem

Subjects Age Gender Qualification Decision Total time
name Making taken
styles
th
Sumbul 21 F 4 Semester Reflective 2 mins 12 sec

Task 4: Social and Ethical Problem

Subjects Age Gender Qualification Decision Total time

name Making taken
styles
th
Sumbul 21 F 4 Semester Reflective 1 min

Material and apparatus:

 Scissors
 Work sheets
 Pencil
 Stop watch
 Coins
 T Puzzle
 Color Papers

Introspective report:

Condition 1: (Group Setting)

 Did you conform when you performed the tasks in group?

Yes I conformed to an extent but I also gave in my point of view.
 Out of the 3 tasks performed in the group which one was your favorite?
I liked the traffic jam motor task the most.
 What do you think was your leadership style being the part of a group?
I think my leadership style being in the group was mostly participative.
 What do you think was your decision making style being the part of a group?
I think my decision making style being the part of the group was reflective.

14
 Problem Solving

Condition 2: (Individual Setting)

 Did you enjoy more in group setting or individual setting?
I enjoyed more in individual setting.

 Out of the 4 tasks performed by you, which one did you find the most
interesting?
Out of the 4 task I liked the motor task (T- puzzle) the most.

 What do you think was your decision making style in individual tasks?
I think my decision making style being the part of the group was reflective.

Hypothesis:
There will be difference in performance of subjects working alone and in a group situation

Proof of hypothesis:
The hypothesis in our case was proved.

15
 Problem Solving

Discussion of the results:

According to the hypothesis “There will be a difference in the performance of subjects working

alone and in group situation”. While performing the tasks with the participant this hypothesis

proved to be true. By the end of the all the task certain questions were asked to the participant in

order to measure how they feel and position themselves in a group and an individual situation. My

participant stated that she enjoyed more in the tasks performed individually than in groups. The

answers given the participant meant that there are many factors that contribute to have a different

preference to problem solving in the two conditions.

1. Personality Types:

Personality types include being either introvert or extrovert. Introverts are considered as deep

thinkers and they take time to process multiple ideas. One super power of an introvert isthat

they think without being decisive and come up with a solution best fitted for long term.

Those who choose introversion give their ideas some thought before acting, whereas people

who prefer extroversion discuss their ideas in order to make them clear before acting.

Whereas extroverts look for input from their surroundings, introverts are more concerned

with their own comprehension of significant concepts and ideas.

2. Individual Differences:

Sensitive individuals take reality, facts, and details into account while making decisions to

address issues. In order to make decisions and typically come up with novel, creative

solutions, intuitive individuals try to comprehend the significance of the data, the

relationships between the facts, and the possibilities of future occurrences that might be

envisaged from this information. While solving problems, thinking individuals typically

16
 Problem Solving

apply logic and objective analysis, whereas feeling individuals are more likely to lean

towards subjective considerations of values and feelings.

3. Thinking Pattern:

Emotional commitment when making decisions on what is or is not the best course of action.

Realistic thinking, often known as the method of tackling the most pressing issue first and

working backwards from what is possible. Empirical thinking includes using experience from

the past to determine if a situation is right or incorrect.

In order to solve a problem, a problem solver must select the best thinking pattern for the

circumstance. In addition to these aspects, developing rational mind processes such as

systems thinking, thought and effect processes, contingency thinking, and hypothesis

formation improves thinking processes.

My participant has an ambivert personality type and is a sensitive thinker. Keeping all these in mind

she chose herself being more confident and comfortable in an individual setting as she sticks to

realistic thinking. Along with conforming to the solutions in the group task she also put forward her

thoughts, which took her a little time as she rationalized and analyzed all the possible outcome and

chose the best one that could fit the situation. People like her like to work individually as they feel

more comfortable in rationalizing an outcome independently.

A research done by R. B Zajonc suggests that the mere presence of others while doing task and as

compared to doing it alone created differences in preferences and outcomes.

Supporting Research:

Social facilitation as a function of the mere presence of others

17
 Problem Solving

According to R. B. Zajonc's (1965) drive theory of social facilitation, the mere presence of others

increases arousal and, thereby, the frequency of dominant responses (i.e., responses with the

greatest habit strength). In the present experiment, U.S. undergraduates performed a stimulus

discrimination task under 1 of 2 conditions: in the presence of another individual (audience) or

alone. The mere presence condition was designed to make it difficult for the participants to attend

directly to the audience. The task was designed to minimize the likelihood that the specific response

(numerical preference) would be attributable to a desire to respond appropriately to the audience.

There was a significant difference in the mean number of dominant responses between the

participants in the audience condition and those in the alone condition. The results provide support

for Zajonc's mere presence drive theory of social facilitation.

Conclusion:
The tasks performed with the participant proved the hypothesis that performance of the individual

will be different in the group and that when it is performed individually. . Certain factors are always

included when people solve problems including the personality type, thinking patterns etc. Those

factors also effects the individuals choice in decision making and leadership style

References:
Definitions:
 Fülöp, J. (2005, November). Introduction to decision making methods. In BDEI-3 workshop,
Washington (pp. 1-15).
 Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological bulletin, 51(4), 380.
 Kim, J. Y., Choi, D. S., Sung, C. S., & Park, J. Y. (2018). The role of problem solving ability on
innovative behavior and opportunity recognition in university students. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(1), 4.
 D'zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of
abnormal psychology, 78(1), 107.

18
Problem Solving

Explanation:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_problem
 https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185918
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem
 https://www.ibm.com/docs/SSMPHH_11.2.0/com.ibm.guardium.doc.admin/tshoot/ts_overview.ht
ml
 http://planetaryproject.com/global_problems/resourse/
 https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/1-1-what-is-a-social-problem/
 https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/design-problem/7330
 https://academic.oup.com/book/4347/chapter-abstract/146287600?redirectedFrom=fulltext/
 https://brainly.in/question/34969412
 https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/action-plan
 https://powerful-problem-solving.com/implement/

Historical background:
 Kim, J. Y., Choi, D. S., Sung, C. S., & Park, J. Y. (2018). The role of problem solving ability on
innovative behavior and opportunity recognition in university students. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(1), 4.
 Lakhani, K. R., Jeppesen, L. B., Lohse, P. A., & Panetta, J. A. (2007). The value of openess in
scientific problem solving (pp. 7-50). Boston, MA: Division of Research, Harvard Business
School.

19