problem solving method psychology definition

Definition:

Problem Solving is the process of identifying, analyzing, and finding effective solutions to complex issues or challenges.

Key Steps in Problem Solving:

• Identification of the problem: Recognizing and clearly defining the issue that needs to be resolved.
• Analysis and research: Gathering relevant information, data, and facts to understand the problem in-depth.
• Formulating strategies: Developing various approaches and plans to tackle the problem effectively.
• Evaluation and selection: Assessing the viability and potential outcomes of the proposed solutions and selecting the most appropriate one.
• Implementation: Putting the chosen solution into action and executing the necessary steps to resolve the problem.
• Monitoring and feedback: Continuously evaluating the implemented solution and obtaining feedback to ensure its effectiveness.
• Adaptation and improvement: Modifying and refining the solution as needed to optimize results and prevent similar problems from arising in the future.

Skills and Qualities for Effective Problem Solving:

• Analytical thinking: The ability to break down complex problems into smaller, manageable components and analyze them thoroughly.
• Creativity: Thinking outside the box and generating innovative solutions.
• Decision making: Making logical and informed choices based on available data and critical thinking.
• Communication: Clearly conveying ideas, listening actively, and collaborating with others to solve problems as a team.
• Resilience: Maintaining a positive mindset, perseverance, and adaptability in the face of challenges.
• Resourcefulness: Utilizing available resources and seeking new approaches when confronted with obstacles.
• Time management: Effectively organizing and prioritizing tasks to optimize problem-solving efficiency.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Solving problems the cognitive-behavioral way, problem solving is another part of behavioral therapy..

Posted February 2, 2022 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

• What Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?
• Take our Your Mental Health Today Test
• Find a therapist who practices CBT
• Problem-solving is one technique used on the behavioral side of cognitive-behavioral therapy.
• The problem-solving technique is an iterative, five-step process that requires one to identify the problem and test different solutions.
• The technique differs from ad-hoc problem-solving in its suspension of judgment and evaluation of each solution.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, cognitive behavioral therapy is more than challenging negative, automatic thoughts. There is a whole behavioral piece of this therapy that focuses on what people do and how to change their actions to support their mental health. In this post, I’ll talk about the problem-solving technique from cognitive behavioral therapy and what makes it unique.

The problem-solving technique

While there are many different variations of this technique, I am going to describe the version I typically use, and which includes the main components of the technique:

The first step is to clearly define the problem. Sometimes, this includes answering a series of questions to make sure the problem is described in detail. Sometimes, the client is able to define the problem pretty clearly on their own. Sometimes, a discussion is needed to clearly outline the problem.

The next step is generating solutions without judgment. The "without judgment" part is crucial: Often when people are solving problems on their own, they will reject each potential solution as soon as they or someone else suggests it. This can lead to feeling helpless and also discarding solutions that would work.

The third step is evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each solution. This is the step where judgment comes back.

Fourth, the client picks the most feasible solution that is most likely to work and they try it out.

The fifth step is evaluating whether the chosen solution worked, and if not, going back to step two or three to find another option. For step five, enough time has to pass for the solution to have made a difference.

This process is iterative, meaning the client and therapist always go back to the beginning to make sure the problem is resolved and if not, identify what needs to change.

Advantages of the problem-solving technique

The problem-solving technique might differ from ad hoc problem-solving in several ways. The most obvious is the suspension of judgment when coming up with solutions. We sometimes need to withhold judgment and see the solution (or problem) from a different perspective. Deliberately deciding not to judge solutions until later can help trigger that mindset change.

Another difference is the explicit evaluation of whether the solution worked. When people usually try to solve problems, they don’t go back and check whether the solution worked. It’s only if something goes very wrong that they try again. The problem-solving technique specifically includes evaluating the solution.

Lastly, the problem-solving technique starts with a specific definition of the problem instead of just jumping to solutions. To figure out where you are going, you have to know where you are.

One benefit of the cognitive behavioral therapy approach is the behavioral side. The behavioral part of therapy is a wide umbrella that includes problem-solving techniques among other techniques. Accessing multiple techniques means one is more likely to address the client’s main concern.

Salene M. W. Jones, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in Washington State.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Facilitating Complex Thinking

Problem-Solving

Somewhat less open-ended than creative thinking is  problem-solving , the analysis and solution of tasks or situations that are complex or ambiguous and that pose difficulties or obstacles of some kind (Mayer & Wittrock, 2006). Problem-solving is needed, for example, when a physician analyzes a chest X-ray: a photograph of the chest is far from clear and requires skill, experience, and resourcefulness to decide which foggy-looking blobs to ignore, and which to interpret as real physical structures (and therefore real medical concerns). Problem-solving is also needed when a grocery store manager has to decide how to improve the sales of a product: should she put it on sale at a lower price, or increase publicity for it, or both? Will these actions actually increase sales enough to pay for their costs?

PROBLEM-SOLVING IN THE CLASSROOM

Problem-solving happens in classrooms when teachers present tasks or challenges that are deliberately complex and for which finding a solution is not straightforward or obvious. The responses of students to such problems, as well as the strategies for assisting them, show the key features of problem-solving. Consider this example and students’ responses to it. We have numbered and named the paragraphs to make it easier to comment about them individually:

Scene #1: A problem to be solved

A teacher gave these instructions: “Can you connect all of the dots below using only  four  straight lines?” She drew the following display on the chalkboard:

The problem itself and the procedure for solving it seemed very clear: simply experiment with different arrangements of four lines. But two volunteers tried doing it at the board, but were unsuccessful. Several others worked at it at their seats, but also without success.

Scene #2: Coaxing students to re-frame the problem

When no one seemed to be getting it, the teacher asked, “Think about how you’ve set up the problem in your mind—about what you believe the problem is about. For instance, have you made any assumptions about how long the lines ought to be? Don’t stay stuck on one approach if it’s not working!”

Scene #3: Alicia abandons a fixed response

After the teacher said this, Alicia indeed continued to think about how she saw the problem. “The lines need to be no longer than the distance across the square,” she said to herself. So she tried several more solutions, but none of them worked either.

The teacher walked by Alicia’s desk and saw what Alicia was doing. She repeated her earlier comment: “Have you assumed anything about how long the lines ought to be?”

Alicia stared at the teacher blankly, but then smiled and said, “Hmm! You didn’t actually  say  that the lines could be no longer than the matrix! Why not make them longer?” So she experimented again using oversized lines and soon discovered a solution:

Scene #4: Willem’s and Rachel’s alternative strategies

Meanwhile, Willem worked on the problem. As it happened, Willem loved puzzles of all kinds and had ample experience with them. He had not, however, seen this particular problem. “It  must  be a trick,” he said to himself because he knew from experience that problems posed in this way often were not what they first appeared to be. He mused to himself: “Think outside the box, they always tell you. . .” And  that  was just the hint he needed: he drew lines outside the box by making them longer than the matrix and soon came up with this solution:

When Rachel went to work, she took one look at the problem and knew the answer immediately: she had seen this problem before, though she could not remember where. She had also seen other drawing-related puzzles and knew that their solution always depended on making the lines longer, shorter, or differently angled than first expected. After staring at the dots briefly, she drew a solution faster than Alicia or even Willem. Her solution looked exactly like Willem’s.

This story illustrates two common features of problem-solving: the effect of degree of structure or constraint on problem-solving, and the effect of mental obstacles to solving problems. The next sections discuss each of these features and then look at common techniques for solving problems.

The Effect of Constraints: Well-Structured Versus Ill-Structured Problems

Problems vary in how much information they provide for solving a problem, as well as in how many rules or procedures are needed for a solution. A  well-structured problem  provides much of the information needed and can in principle be solved using relatively few clearly understood rules. Classic examples are the word problems often taught in math lessons or classes: everything you need to know is contained within the stated problem and the solution procedures are relatively clear and precise. An  ill-structured problem  has the converse qualities: the information is not necessarily within the problem, solution procedures are potentially quite numerous, and multiple solutions are likely (Voss, 2006). Extreme examples are problems like “How can the world achieve lasting peace?” or “How can teachers ensure that students learn?”

By these definitions, the nine-dot problem is relatively well-structured—though not completely. Most of the information needed for a solution is provided in Scene #1: there are nine dots shown and instructions given to draw four lines. But not  all  necessary information was given: students needed to consider lines that were longer than implied in the original statement of the problem. Students had to “think outside the box,” as Willem said—in this case, literally.

When a problem is well-structured, so are its solution procedures likely to be as well. A well-defined procedure for solving a particular kind of problem is often called an  algorithm ; examples are the procedures for multiplying or dividing two numbers or the instructions for using a computer (Leiserson, et al., 2001). Algorithms are only effective when a problem is very well-structured and there is no question about whether the algorithm is an appropriate choice for the problem. In that situation, it pretty much guarantees a correct solution. They do not work well, however, with ill-structured problems, where they are ambiguities and questions about how to proceed or even about precisely  what  the problem is about. In those cases, it is more effective to use  heuristics , which are general strategies—“rules of thumb,” so to speak—that do not always work but often do, or that provide at least partial solutions. When beginning research for a term paper, for example, a useful heuristic is to scan the library catalog for titles that look relevant. There is no guarantee that this strategy will yield the books most needed for the paper, but the strategy works enough of the time to make it worth trying.

In the nine-dot problem, most students began in Scene #1 with a simple algorithm that can be stated like this: “Draw one line, then draw another, and another, and another.” Unfortunately, this simple procedure did not produce a solution, so they had to find other strategies for a solution. Three alternatives are described in Scenes #3 (for Alicia) and 4 (for Willem and Rachel). Of these, Willem’s response resembled a heuristic the most: he knew from experience that a good  general  strategy that  often  worked for such problems was to suspect deception or trick in how the problem was originally stated. So he set out to question what the teacher had meant by the word  line  and came up with an acceptable solution as a result.

Common Obstacles to Solving Problems

The example also illustrates two common problems that sometimes happen during problem-solving. One of these is  functional fixedness : a tendency to regard the  functions  of objects and ideas as  fixed  (German & Barrett, 2005). Over time, we get so used to one particular purpose for an object that we overlook other uses. We may think of a dictionary, for example, as necessarily something to verify spellings and definitions, but it also can function as a gift, a doorstop, or a footstool. For students working on the nine-dot matrix described in the last section, the notion of “drawing” a line was also initially fixed; they assumed it to be connecting dots but not extending lines beyond the dots. Functional fixedness sometimes is also called  response set , the tendency for a person to frame or think about each problem in a series in the same way as the previous problem, even when doing so is not appropriate for later problems. In the example of the nine-dot matrix described above, students often tried one solution after another, but each solution was constrained by a set response not  to extend any line beyond the matrix.

Functional fixedness and the response set are obstacles in  problem representation , the way that a person understands and organizes information provided in a problem. If information is misunderstood or used inappropriately, then mistakes are likely—if indeed the problem can be solved at all. With the nine-dot matrix problem, for example, construing the instruction to draw four lines as meaning “draw four lines entirely within the matrix” means that the problem simply could not be solved. For another, consider this problem: “The number of water lilies on a lake doubles each day. Each water lily covers exactly one square foot. If it takes 100 days for the lilies to cover the lake exactly, how many days does it take for the lilies to cover exactly half of the lake?” If you think that the size of the lilies affects the solution to this problem, you have not represented the problem correctly. Information about lily size is  not  relevant to the solution and only serves to distract from the truly crucial information, the fact that the lilies  double  their coverage each day. (The answer, incidentally, is that the lake is half covered in 99 days; can you think why?)

Strategies to Assist Problem-Solving

Just as there are cognitive obstacles to problem-solving, there are also general strategies that help the process be successful, regardless of the specific content of a problem (Thagard, 2005). One helpful strategy is  problem analysis —identifying the parts of the problem and working on each part separately. Analysis is especially useful when a problem is ill-structured. Consider this problem, for example: “Devise a plan to improve bicycle transportation in the city.” Solving this problem is easier if you identify its parts or component subproblems, such as (1) installing bicycle lanes on busy streets, (2) educating cyclists and motorists to ride safely, (3) fixing potholes on streets used by cyclists, and (4) revising traffic laws that interfere with cycling. Each separate subproblem is more manageable than the original, general problem. The solution of each subproblem contributes to the solution of the whole, though of course is not equivalent to a whole solution.

Another helpful strategy is  working backward   from  a final solution to the originally stated problem. This approach is especially helpful when a problem is well-structured but also has elements that are distracting or misleading when approached in a forward, normal direction. The water lily problem described above is a good example: starting with the day when  all  the lake is covered (Day 100), ask what day would it, therefore, be half-covered (by the terms of the problem, it would have to be the day before, or Day 99). Working backward, in this case, encourages reframing the extra information in the problem (i. e. the size of each water lily) as merely distracting, not as crucial to a solution.

A third helpful strategy is  analogical thinking —using knowledge or experiences with similar features or structures to help solve the problem at hand (Bassok, 2003). In devising a plan to improve bicycling in the city, for example, an analogy of cars with bicycles is helpful in thinking of solutions: improving conditions for both vehicles requires many of the same measures (improving the roadways, educating drivers). Even solving simpler, more basic problems is helped by considering analogies. A first-grade student can partially decode unfamiliar printed words by analogy to words he or she has learned already. If the child cannot yet read the word screen , for example, he can note that part of this word looks similar to words he may already know, such as  seen  or  green,  and from this observation derive a clue about how to read the word  screen . Teachers can assist this process, as you might expect, by suggesting reasonable, helpful analogies for students to consider.

Video 5.4.1. Problem Solving explains strategies used for solving problems.

Many systems for problem-solving can be taught to learners (Pressley, 1995). There are problem-solving strategies to improve general problem solving (Burkell, Schneider, & Pressley, 1990; Mayer, 1987; Sternberg, 1988), scientific thinking (Kuhn, 1989), mathematical problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1989), and writing during the elementary years (Harris & Graham, 1992a) and during adolescence (Applebee, 1984; Langer & Applebee, 1987).

A problem-solving system that can be used in a variety of curriculum areas and with a variety of problems is called IDEAL (Bransford & Steen, 1984). IDEAL involves five stages of problem-solving:

• Identify the problem. Learners must know what the problem is before they can solve it. During this stage of problem-solving, learners ask themselves whether they understand what the problem is and whether they have stated it clearly.
• Define terms. During this stage, learners check whether they understand what each word in the problem statement means.
• Explore strategies. At this stage, learners compile relevant information and try out strategies to solve the problem. This can involve drawing diagrams, working backward to solve a mathematical or reading comprehension problem, or breaking complex problems into manageable units.
• Act on the strategy. Once learners have explored a variety of strategies, they select one and now use it.
• Look at the effects. During the final stage of the IDEAL method, learners ask themselves whether they have come up with an acceptable solution.

Video 5.4.2. The Problem Solving Model explains the process involved in solving problems. These steps can be explicitly taught to enhance problem-solving skills.

Candela Citations

• Problem-Solving. Authored by : Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose. Provided by : Hudson Valley Community College. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/edpsy/chapter/problemsolving. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary Sutton. Provided by : The Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationalpsychology. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Bohlin. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Problem Solving. Authored by : Carole Yue. Provided by : Khan Academy. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/J3GGx9wy07w. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• The Problem Solving Model. Provided by : Gregg Learning. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/CDk_BD1LXiI. License : All Rights Reserved

Educational Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Cognitive Psychology

• Precursors to Cognitive Psychology
• Emergence of Cognitive Psychology
• Research Methods
• Brain and Cognition: Neurons
• Brain and Cognition: Brain Structure
• Introduction to perception
• Top-down and bottom-up theories of perception
• Problem Solving
• Problem solving and insight
• Problem solving in animals
• Welcome page
• What is a Wiki Site?
• How to edit pages?
• How to join this site?
• Site members
• Recent changes
• List all pages
• Site Manager

It seems you have no tags attached to pages. To attach a tag simply click on the tags button at the bottom of any page.

Add a new page

edit this panel

What is problem solving?

A problem arises when we need to overcome some obstacle in order to get from our current state to a desired state. Problem solving is the process that an organism implements in order to try to get from the current state to the desired state.

An historical review of approaches to problem solving

The behaviourist approach.

Behaviourist researchers argued that problem solving was a reproductive process; that is, organisms faced with a problem applied behaviour that had been successful on a previous occasion. Successful behaviour was itself believed to have been arrived at through a process of trial-and-error. In 1911 Edward Thorndike had developed his law of effect after observing cats discover how to escape from the cage into which he had placed them. This greatly influenced the behaviourist view of problem solving:

The Gestalt approach

By contrast, Gestalt psychologists argued that problem solving was a productive process. In particular, in the process of thinking about a problem individuals sometimes "restructured" their representation of the problem, leading to a flash of insight that enabled them to reach a solution. In The Mentality of Apes (1915) Wolfgang Köhler described a series of studies with apes in which the animals appeared to demonstrate insight in problem solving situations. A description of these studies, with photographs, can be found here .

The Gestalt psychologists described several aspects of thought that acted as barriers to successful problem solving. One of these was called the Einstellung effect , now more commonly referred to as mental set or entrenchment . This occurs when a problem solver becomes fixated on applying a strategy that has previously worked, but is less helpful for the current problem. Luchins (1942) reported a study in which people had to use three jugs of differing capacity (measured in cups) to measure out a required amount of water (given by the experimenter). Some people were given a series of "practice" trials prior to attempting the critical problems. These practice problems could be solved by filling Jug B, then tipping water from Jug B into Jug A until it is filled, and then twice using the remainging contents of Jug A to fill Jug C. Expressed as a formula, this is B - A - 2C. However, although this formula could be applied to the subsequent "critical" problems, these also had simpler solutions, such as A - C. People who had experienced the practice problems mostly tried to apply the more complex solution to these later problems, unlike people who had not experienced the earlier problems (who mostly found the simpler solutions).

Another barrier to problem solving is functional fixedness , whereby individuals fail to recognize that objects can be used for a purpose other than that they were designed for. Maier (1930) illustrated this with his two string problem .

For a real life example of overcoming fuctional fixedness, see: Overcoming functional fixedness: Apollo 13

Questions : What do you think of Köhler's claim that his apes had demonstrated insight? What proportion of Maier's participants spontaneously found the solution before getting any kind of hint? What did Maier do that led some people to get the correct solution? (these questions require some research)

The cognitive approach to problem solving

Problem space theory.

In 1972, Allen Newell and Herbert Simon published the book Human Problem Solving , in which they outlined their problem space theory of problem solving. In this theory, people solve problems by searching in a problem space . The problem space consists of the initial (current) state, the goal state, and all possible states in between. The actions that people take in order to move from one state to another are known as operators . Consider the eight puzzle . The problem space for the eight puzzle consists of the initial arrangement of tiles, the desired arrangement of tiles (normally 1, 2, 3….8), and all the possible arrangements that can be arrived at in between. However, problem spaces can be very large so the key issue is how people navigate their way through the possibilities, given their limited working memory capacities. In other words, how do they choose operators? For many problems we possess domain knowledge that helps us decide what to do. But for novel problems Newell and Simon proposed that operator selection is guided by cognitive short-cuts, known as heuristics . The simplest heuristic is repeat-state avoidance or backup avoidance 1 , whereby individuals prefer not to take an action that would take them back to a previous problem state. This is unhelpful when a person has taken an inappropriate action and actually needs to go back a step or more.

Another heuristic is difference reduction , or hill-climbing , whereby people take the action that leads to the biggest similarity between current state and goal state. Before reading further, see if you can solve the following problem:

In the hobbits and orcs problem the task instructions are as follows:

On one side of a river are three hobbits and three orcs. They have a boat on their side that is capable of carrying two creatures at a time across the river. The goal is to transport all six creatures across to the other side of the river. At no point on either side of the river can orcs outnumber hobbits (or the orcs would eat the outnumbered hobbits). The problem, then, is to find a method of transporting all six creatures across the river without the hobbits ever being outnumbered.

The solution to this problem, together with an explanation of how difference reduction is often applied, can be found by clicking here .

A more sophisticated heuristic is means-ends analysis . Like difference reduction, the means-ends analysis heuristic looks for the action that will lead to the greatest reduction in difference between the current state and goal state, but also specifies what to do if that action cannot be taken. Means-ends analysis can be specified as follows 2 :

• Compare the current state with the goal state. If there is no difference between them, the problem is solved.
• If there is a difference between the current state and the goal state, set a goal to solve that difference. If there is more than one difference, set a goal to solve the largest difference.
• Select an operator that will solve the difference identified in Step 2.
• If the operator can be applied, apply it. If it cannot, set a new goal to reach a state that would allow the application of the operator.
• Return to Step 1 with the new goal set in Step 4.

The application of means-ends analysis can be illustrated with the Tower of Hanoi problem .

In 1957 Newell and Simon developed the General Problem Solver , a computer program that used means-ends analysis to find solutions to a range of well-defined problems - problems that have clear paths (if not easy ones) to a goal state. In their 1972 book on problem solving they reported the verbal protocols of participants engaged in problem solving, which showed a close match between the steps that they took and those taken by the General Problem Solver.

Acquiring operators

There are three ways in which operators can be acquired:

• Trial-and-error. As noted above, this formed the basis of the behaviourist account of problem solving.
• Direct instruction.
• Analogies. Analogies are examples from one domain (the source), whose elements can be used to aid problem solving in another domain (the target). However, novices often struggle to spot analogies, as described here .

Next: Problem solving and insight

Problem Solving

Download or send

Choose your language, professional version.

A PDF of the resource, theoretical background, suggested therapist questions and prompts.

Premium Feature

Client version.

A PDF of the resource plus client-friendly instructions where appropriate.

Fillable version (PDF)

A fillable version of the resource. This can be edited and saved in Adobe Acrobat, or other PDF editing software.

Editable version (PPT)

An editable Microsoft PowerPoint version of the resource.

Translation Template

Are you a qualified therapist who would like to help with our translation project?

Languages this resource is available in

• Chinese (Simplified)
• Chinese (Traditional)
• English (GB)
• English (US)
• Spanish (International)

Mechanisms associated with this resource

• Skills deficit

Introduction & Theoretical Background

Problem Solving is a helpful intervention whenever clients present with difficulties, dilemmas, and conundrums, or when they experience repetitive thought such as rumination or worry. Effective problem solving is an essential life skill and this Problem Solving worksheet is designed to guide adults through steps which will help them to generate solutions to ‘stuck’ situations in their lives. It follows the qualities of effective problem solving outlined by Nezu, Nezu & D’Zurilla (2013), namely: clearly defining a problem; generation of alternative solutions; deliberative decision making; and the implementation of the chosen solution.

The therapist’s stance during problem solving should be one of collaborative curiosity. It is not for the therapist to pass judgment or to impose their preferred solution. Instead it is the clinician’s role to sit alongside clients and to help them examine the advantages and disadvantages of their options and, if the client is ‘stuck’ in rumination or worry, to help motivate them to take action to become unstuck – constructive rumination asks “How can I…?” questions instead of “Why…?” questions.

In their description of problem solving therapy Nezu, Nezu & D’Zurilla (2013) describe how it is helpful to elicit a positive orientation towards the problem which involves: being willing to appraise problems as challenges; remain optimistic that problems are solvable; remember that successful problem solving involves time and effort.

Therapist Guidance

• What is the nature of the problem?
• What are my goals?
• What is getting the way of me reaching my goals?
• “Can you think of any ways that you could make this problem not be a problem any more?”
• “What’s keeping this problem as a problem? What could you do to target that part of the problem?”
• “If your friend was bothered by a problem like this what might be something that you recommend they try?”
• “What would be some of the worst ways of solving a problem like this? And the best?”
• “How would Batman solve a problem like this?”
• Consider short term and long-term implications of each strategy
• Implications may relate to: emotional well-being, choices & opportunities, relationships, self-growth
• The next step is to consider which of the available options is the best solution. If you do not feel positive about any solutions, the choice becomes “Which is the least-worst?”. Remember that “even not-making-a-choice is a form of choice”.  
• The last step of problem solving is putting a plan into action. Rumination, worry, and being in the horns of a dilemma are ‘stuck’ states which require a behavioral ‘nudge’ to become unstuck. Once you have put your plan into action it is important to monitor the outcome and to evaluate whether the actual outcome was consistent with the anticipated outcome.

References And Further Reading

• Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, B.F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression . New York: Guilford. Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., D’Zurilla, T. J. (2013). Problem-solving therapy: a treatment manual . New York: Springer.
• For clinicians
• For students
• Resources at your fingertips
• Designed for effectiveness
• Resources by problem
• Translation Project
• Help center
• Try us for free
• Terms & conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy

Thinking and Intelligence

Solving problems, learning objectives.

• Describe problem solving strategies, including algorithms and heuristics

People face problems every day—usually, multiple problems throughout the day. Sometimes these problems are straightforward: To double a recipe for pizza dough, for example, all that is required is that each ingredient in the recipe be doubled. Sometimes, however, the problems we encounter are more complex. For example, say you have a work deadline, and you must mail a printed copy of a report to your supervisor by the end of the business day. The report is time-sensitive and must be sent overnight. You finished the report last night, but your printer will not work today. What should you do? First, you need to identify the problem and then apply a strategy for solving the problem.

Problem-Solving Strategies

When you are presented with a problem—whether it is a complex mathematical problem or a broken printer, how do you solve it? Before finding a solution to the problem, the problem must first be clearly identified. After that, one of many problem solving strategies can be applied, hopefully resulting in a solution.

A problem-solving strategy is a plan of action used to find a solution. Different strategies have different action plans associated with them. For example, a well-known strategy is trial and error . The old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” describes trial and error. In terms of your broken printer, you could try checking the ink levels, and if that doesn’t work, you could check to make sure the paper tray isn’t jammed. Or maybe the printer isn’t actually connected to your laptop. When using trial and error, you would continue to try different solutions until you solved your problem. Although trial and error is not typically one of the most time-efficient strategies, it is a commonly used one.

Another type of strategy is an algorithm. An algorithm is a problem-solving formula that provides you with step-by-step instructions used to achieve a desired outcome (Kahneman, 2011). You can think of an algorithm as a recipe with highly detailed instructions that produce the same result every time they are performed. Algorithms are used frequently in our everyday lives, especially in computer science. When you run a search on the Internet, search engines like Google use algorithms to decide which entries will appear first in your list of results. Facebook also uses algorithms to decide which posts to display on your newsfeed. Can you identify other situations in which algorithms are used?

A heuristic is another type of problem solving strategy. While an algorithm must be followed exactly to produce a correct result, a heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. A “rule of thumb” is an example of a heuristic. Such a rule saves the person time and energy when making a decision, but despite its time-saving characteristics, it is not always the best method for making a rational decision. Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, but the impulse to use a heuristic occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):

• When one is faced with too much information
• When the time to make a decision is limited
• When the decision to be made is unimportant
• When there is access to very little information to use in making the decision
• When an appropriate heuristic happens to come to mind in the same moment

Working backwards is a useful heuristic in which you begin solving the problem by focusing on the end result. Consider this example: You live in Washington, D.C. and have been invited to a wedding at 4 PM on Saturday in Philadelphia. Knowing that Interstate 95 tends to back up any day of the week, you need to plan your route and time your departure accordingly. If you want to be at the wedding service by 3:30 PM, and it takes 2.5 hours to get to Philadelphia without traffic, what time should you leave your house? You use the working backwards heuristic to plan the events of your day on a regular basis, probably without even thinking about it.

You can view the transcript for “Can you solve “Einstein’s Riddle”? – Dan Van der Vieren” here (opens in new window) .

Another useful heuristic is the practice of accomplishing a large goal or task by breaking it into a series of smaller steps. Students often use this common method to complete a large research project or long essay for school. For example, students typically brainstorm, develop a thesis or main topic, research the chosen topic, organize their information into an outline, write a rough draft, revise and edit the rough draft, develop a final draft, organize the references list, and proofread their work before turning in the project. The large task becomes less overwhelming when it is broken down into a series of small steps.

Everyday Connections: Solving Puzzles

Problem-solving abilities can improve with practice. Many people challenge themselves every day with puzzles and other mental exercises to sharpen their problem-solving skills. Sudoku puzzles appear daily in most newspapers. Typically, a sudoku puzzle is a 9×9 grid. The simple sudoku below (Figure 1) is a 4×4 grid. To solve the puzzle, fill in the empty boxes with a single digit: 1, 2, 3, or 4. Here are the rules: The numbers must total 10 in each bolded box, each row, and each column; however, each digit can only appear once in a bolded box, row, and column. Time yourself as you solve this puzzle and compare your time with a classmate.

Figure 1 . How long did it take you to solve this sudoku puzzle? (You can see the answer at the end of this section.)

Here is another popular type of puzzle that challenges your spatial reasoning skills. Connect all nine dots with four connecting straight lines without lifting your pencil from the paper:

Figure 2 . Did you figure it out? (The answer is at the end of this section.) Once you understand how to crack this puzzle, you won’t forget.

Take a look at the “Puzzling Scales” logic puzzle below (Figure 3). Sam Loyd, a well-known puzzle master, created and refined countless puzzles throughout his lifetime (Cyclopedia of Puzzles, n.d.).

Figure 3 . The puzzle reads, “Since the scales now balance…and balance when arranged this way, then how many marbles will it require to balance with that top?

Were you able to determine how many marbles are needed to balance the scales in the Puzzling Scales? You need nine. Were you able to solve the other problems above? Here are the answers:

• Modification and adaptation. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Problem-Solving. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/7-3-problem-solving . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Can you solve Einsteinu2019s Riddle? . Authored by : Dan Van der Vieren. Provided by : Ted-Ed. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rDVz_Fb6HQ&index=3&list=PLUmyCeox8XCwB8FrEfDQtQZmCc2qYMS5a . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

PROBLEM SOLVING

Problem solving is a process for individual's to overcome a specific problem. That process, simply, begins at a starting point and continues until a conclusion is reached. The process includes the higher mental functions and creative thinking . However, problem solving is also seen in the animal kingdom through the use of mazes and testing to obtain hidden rewards. Many animals display quite a range of problem solving strategies including win-stay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts

A Quick Look at the History Behind Hypnosis

A Brief History of Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control

A Deep Dive into the Social Psychology of Leadership

Counseling Approaches to Client Care: Theories to Apply in Practice

The Future Of Education: Can You Earn A Psychology Degree Online?

Insomnia & Mental Illness: What is the Correlation?

Stop Guessing: Here Are 3 Steps to Data-Driven Psychological Decisions

Getting Help with Grief: Understanding Therapy & How It Can Help

Exploring the Psychology of Risk and Reward

Understanding ADHD in Women: Symptoms, Treatment & Support

Meeting the Milestones: A Guide to Piaget's Child Developmental Stages

Counseling, Therapy, and Psychology: What Is The Difference?

Popular psychology terms, medical model, hypermnesia, affirmation, brainwashing, backup reinforcer, affiliative behavior, message-learning approach, social pressure, contrast effect, behavioral sequence, basic anxiety.

Heuristics: Definition, Examples, And How They Work

Benjamin Frimodig

Science Expert

B.A., History and Science, Harvard University

Ben Frimodig is a 2021 graduate of Harvard College, where he studied the History of Science.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Every day our brains must process and respond to thousands of problems, both large and small, at a moment’s notice. It might even be overwhelming to consider the sheer volume of complex problems we regularly face in need of a quick solution.

While one might wish there was time to methodically and thoughtfully evaluate the fine details of our everyday tasks, the cognitive demands of daily life often make such processing logistically impossible.

Therefore, the brain must develop reliable shortcuts to keep up with the stimulus-rich environments we inhabit. Psychologists refer to these efficient problem-solving techniques as heuristics.

Heuristics can be thought of as general cognitive frameworks humans rely on regularly to reach a solution quickly.

For example, if a student needs to decide what subject she will study at university, her intuition will likely be drawn toward the path that she envisions as most satisfying, practical, and interesting.

She may also think back on her strengths and weaknesses in secondary school or perhaps even write out a pros and cons list to facilitate her choice.

It’s important to note that these heuristics broadly apply to everyday problems, produce sound solutions, and helps simplify otherwise complicated mental tasks. These are the three defining features of a heuristic.

While the concept of heuristics dates back to Ancient Greece (the term is derived from the Greek word for “to discover”), most of the information known today on the subject comes from prominent twentieth-century social scientists.

Herbert Simon’s study of a notion he called “bounded rationality” focused on decision-making under restrictive cognitive conditions, such as limited time and information.

This concept of optimizing an inherently imperfect analysis frames the contemporary study of heuristics and leads many to credit Simon as a foundational figure in the field.

Kahneman’s Theory of Decision Making

The immense contributions of psychologist Daniel Kahneman to our understanding of cognitive problem-solving deserve special attention.

As context for his theory, Kahneman put forward the estimate that an individual makes around 35,000 decisions each day! To reach these resolutions, the mind relies on either “fast” or “slow” thinking.

The fast thinking pathway (system 1) operates mostly unconsciously and aims to reach reliable decisions with as minimal cognitive strain as possible.

While system 1 relies on broad observations and quick evaluative techniques (heuristics!), system 2 (slow thinking) requires conscious, continuous attention to carefully assess the details of a given problem and logically reach a solution.

Given the sheer volume of daily decisions, it’s no surprise that around 98% of problem-solving uses system 1.

Thus, it is crucial that the human mind develops a toolbox of effective, efficient heuristics to support this fast-thinking pathway.

Heuristics vs. Algorithms

Those who’ve studied the psychology of decision-making might notice similarities between heuristics and algorithms. However, remember that these are two distinct modes of cognition.

Heuristics are methods or strategies which often lead to problem solutions but are not guaranteed to succeed.

They can be distinguished from algorithms, which are methods or procedures that will always produce a solution sooner or later.

An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure that can be reliably used to solve a specific problem. While the concept of an algorithm is most commonly used in reference to technology and mathematics, our brains rely on algorithms every day to resolve issues (Kahneman, 2011).

The important thing to remember is that algorithms are a set of mental instructions unique to specific situations, while heuristics are general rules of thumb that can help the mind process and overcome various obstacles.

For example, if you are thoughtfully reading every line of this article, you are using an algorithm.

On the other hand, if you are quickly skimming each section for important information or perhaps focusing only on sections you don’t already understand, you are using a heuristic!

Why Heuristics Are Used

Heuristics usually occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):

• When one is faced with too much information
• When the time to make a decision is limited
• When the decision to be made is unimportant
• When there is access to very little information to use in making the decision
• When an appropriate heuristic happens to come to mind at the same moment

When studying heuristics, keep in mind both the benefits and unavoidable drawbacks of their application. The ubiquity of these techniques in human society makes such weaknesses especially worthy of evaluation.

More specifically, in expediting decision-making processes, heuristics also predispose us to a number of cognitive biases .

A cognitive bias is an incorrect but pervasive judgment derived from an illogical pattern of cognition. In simple terms, a cognitive bias occurs when one internalizes a subjective perception as a reliable and objective truth.

Heuristics are reliable but imperfect; In the application of broad decision-making “shortcuts” to guide one’s response to specific situations, occasional errors are both inevitable and have the potential to catalyze persistent mistakes.

For example, consider the risks of faulty applications of the representative heuristic discussed above. While the technique encourages one to assign situations into broad categories based on superficial characteristics and one’s past experiences for the sake of cognitive expediency, such thinking is also the basis of stereotypes and discrimination.

In practice, these errors result in the disproportionate favoring of one group and/or the oppression of other groups within a given society.

Indeed, the most impactful research relating to heuristics often centers on the connection between them and systematic discrimination.

The tradeoff between thoughtful rationality and cognitive efficiency encompasses both the benefits and pitfalls of heuristics and represents a foundational concept in psychological research.

When learning about heuristics, keep in mind their relevance to all areas of human interaction. After all, the study of social psychology is intrinsically interdisciplinary.

Many of the most important studies on heuristics relate to flawed decision-making processes in high-stakes fields like law, medicine, and politics.

Researchers often draw on a distinct set of already established heuristics in their analysis. While dozens of unique heuristics have been observed, brief descriptions of those most central to the field are included below:

Availability Heuristic

The availability heuristic describes the tendency to make choices based on information that comes to mind readily.

For example, children of divorced parents are more likely to have pessimistic views towards marriage as adults.

Of important note, this heuristic can also involve assigning more importance to more recently learned information, largely due to the easier recall of such information.

Representativeness Heuristic

This technique allows one to quickly assign probabilities to and predict the outcome of new scenarios using psychological prototypes derived from past experiences.

For example, juries are less likely to convict individuals who are well-groomed and wearing formal attire (under the assumption that stylish, well-kempt individuals typically do not commit crimes).

This is one of the most studied heuristics by social psychologists for its relevance to the development of stereotypes.

Scarcity Heuristic

This method of decision-making is predicated on the perception of less abundant, rarer items as inherently more valuable than more abundant items.

We rely on the scarcity heuristic when we must make a fast selection with incomplete information. For example, a student deciding between two universities may be drawn toward the option with the lower acceptance rate, assuming that this exclusivity indicates a more desirable experience.

The concept of scarcity is central to behavioral economists’ study of consumer behavior (a field that evaluates economics through the lens of human psychology).

Trial and Error

This is the most basic and perhaps frequently cited heuristic. Trial and error can be used to solve a problem that possesses a discrete number of possible solutions and involves simply attempting each possible option until the correct solution is identified.

For example, if an individual was putting together a jigsaw puzzle, he or she would try multiple pieces until locating a proper fit.

This technique is commonly taught in introductory psychology courses due to its simple representation of the central purpose of heuristics: the use of reliable problem-solving frameworks to reduce cognitive load.

Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic

Anchoring refers to the tendency to formulate expectations relating to new scenarios relative to an already ingrained piece of information.

Put simply, this anchoring one to form reasonable estimations around uncertainties. For example, if asked to estimate the number of days in a year on Mars, many people would first call to mind the fact the Earth’s year is 365 days (the “anchor”) and adjust accordingly.

This tendency can also help explain the observation that ingrained information often hinders the learning of new information, a concept known as retroactive inhibition.

Familiarity Heuristic

This technique can be used to guide actions in cognitively demanding situations by simply reverting to previous behaviors successfully utilized under similar circumstances.

The familiarity heuristic is most useful in unfamiliar, stressful environments.

For example, a job seeker might recall behavioral standards in other high-stakes situations from her past (perhaps an important presentation at university) to guide her behavior in a job interview.

Many psychologists interpret this technique as a slightly more specific variation of the availability heuristic.

How to Make Better Decisions

Heuristics are ingrained cognitive processes utilized by all humans and can lead to various biases.

Both of these statements are established facts. However, this does not mean that the biases that heuristics produce are unavoidable. As the wide-ranging impacts of such biases on societal institutions have become a popular research topic, psychologists have emphasized techniques for reaching more sound, thoughtful and fair decisions in our daily lives.

Ironically, many of these techniques are themselves heuristics!

To focus on the key details of a given problem, one might create a mental list of explicit goals and values. To clearly identify the impacts of choice, one should imagine its impacts one year in the future and from the perspective of all parties involved.

Most importantly, one must gain a mindful understanding of the problem-solving techniques used by our minds and the common mistakes that result. Mindfulness of these flawed yet persistent pathways allows one to quickly identify and remedy the biases (or otherwise flawed thinking) they tend to create!

Further Information

• Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological bulletin, 134(2), 207.
• Marewski, J. N., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 14(1), 77.
• Del Campo, C., Pauser, S., Steiner, E., & Vetschera, R. (2016). Decision making styles and the use of heuristics in decision making. Journal of Business Economics, 86(4), 389-412.

What is a heuristic in psychology?

A heuristic in psychology is a mental shortcut or rule of thumb that simplifies decision-making and problem-solving. Heuristics often speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution, but they can also lead to cognitive biases.

Bobadilla-Suarez, S., & Love, B. C. (2017, May 29). Fast or Frugal, but Not Both: Decision Heuristics Under Time Pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition .

Bowes, S. M., Ammirati, R. J., Costello, T. H., Basterfield, C., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2020). Cognitive biases, heuristics, and logical fallacies in clinical practice: A brief field guide for practicing clinicians and supervisors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 51 (5), 435–445.

Dietrich, C. (2010). “Decision Making: Factors that Influence Decision Making, Heuristics Used, and Decision Outcomes.” Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 2(02).

Groenewegen, A. (2021, September 1). Kahneman Fast and slow thinking: System 1 and 2 explained by Sue. SUE Behavioral Design. Retrieved March 26, 2022, from https://suebehaviouraldesign.com/kahneman-fast-slow-thinking/

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision .

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan.

Pratkanis, A. (1989). The cognitive representation of attitudes. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 71–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Simon, H.A., 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review .

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185 (4157), 1124–1131.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Complex Problem Solving: What It Is and What It Is Not

Dietrich dörner.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

Joachim Funke

2 Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Computer-simulated scenarios have been part of psychological research on problem solving for more than 40 years. The shift in emphasis from simple toy problems to complex, more real-life oriented problems has been accompanied by discussions about the best ways to assess the process of solving complex problems. Psychometric issues such as reliable assessments and addressing correlations with other instruments have been in the foreground of these discussions and have left the content validity of complex problem solving in the background. In this paper, we return the focus to content issues and address the important features that define complex problems.

Succeeding in the 21st century requires many competencies, including creativity, life-long learning, and collaboration skills (e.g., National Research Council, 2011 ; Griffin and Care, 2015 ), to name only a few. One competence that seems to be of central importance is the ability to solve complex problems ( Mainzer, 2009 ). Mainzer quotes the Nobel prize winner Simon (1957) who wrote as early as 1957:

The capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex problems is very small compared with the size of the problem whose solution is required for objectively rational behavior in the real world or even for a reasonable approximation to such objective rationality. (p. 198)

The shift from well-defined to ill-defined problems came about as a result of a disillusion with the “general problem solver” ( Newell et al., 1959 ): The general problem solver was a computer software intended to solve all kind of problems that can be expressed through well-formed formulas. However, it soon became clear that this procedure was in fact a “special problem solver” that could only solve well-defined problems in a closed space. But real-world problems feature open boundaries and have no well-determined solution. In fact, the world is full of wicked problems and clumsy solutions ( Verweij and Thompson, 2006 ). As a result, solving well-defined problems and solving ill-defined problems requires different cognitive processes ( Schraw et al., 1995 ; but see Funke, 2010 ).

Well-defined problems have a clear set of means for reaching a precisely described goal state. For example: in a match-stick arithmetic problem, a person receives a false arithmetic expression constructed out of matchsticks (e.g., IV = III + III). According to the instructions, moving one of the matchsticks will make the equations true. Here, both the problem (find the appropriate stick to move) and the goal state (true arithmetic expression; solution is: VI = III + III) are defined clearly.

Ill-defined problems have no clear problem definition, their goal state is not defined clearly, and the means of moving towards the (diffusely described) goal state are not clear. For example: The goal state for solving the political conflict in the near-east conflict between Israel and Palestine is not clearly defined (living in peaceful harmony with each other?) and even if the conflict parties would agree on a two-state solution, this goal again leaves many issues unresolved. This type of problem is called a “complex problem” and is of central importance to this paper. All psychological processes that occur within individual persons and deal with the handling of such ill-defined complex problems will be subsumed under the umbrella term “complex problem solving” (CPS).

Systematic research on CPS started in the 1970s with observations of the behavior of participants who were confronted with computer simulated microworlds. For example, in one of those microworlds participants assumed the role of executives who were tasked to manage a company over a certain period of time (see Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 , for a discussion of this methodology). Today, CPS is an established concept and has even influenced large-scale assessments such as PISA (“Programme for International Student Assessment”), organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD, 2014 ). According to the World Economic Forum, CPS is one of the most important competencies required in the future ( World Economic Forum, 2015 ). Numerous articles on the subject have been published in recent years, documenting the increasing research activity relating to this field. In the following collection of papers we list only those published in 2010 and later: theoretical papers ( Blech and Funke, 2010 ; Funke, 2010 ; Knauff and Wolf, 2010 ; Leutner et al., 2012 ; Selten et al., 2012 ; Wüstenberg et al., 2012 ; Greiff et al., 2013b ; Fischer and Neubert, 2015 ; Schoppek and Fischer, 2015 ), papers about measurement issues ( Danner et al., 2011a ; Greiff et al., 2012 , 2015a ; Alison et al., 2013 ; Gobert et al., 2015 ; Greiff and Fischer, 2013 ; Herde et al., 2016 ; Stadler et al., 2016 ), papers about applications ( Fischer and Neubert, 2015 ; Ederer et al., 2016 ; Tremblay et al., 2017 ), papers about differential effects ( Barth and Funke, 2010 ; Danner et al., 2011b ; Beckmann and Goode, 2014 ; Greiff and Neubert, 2014 ; Scherer et al., 2015 ; Meißner et al., 2016 ; Wüstenberg et al., 2016 ), one paper about developmental effects ( Frischkorn et al., 2014 ), one paper with a neuroscience background ( Osman, 2012 ) 1 , papers about cultural differences ( Güss and Dörner, 2011 ; Sonnleitner et al., 2014 ; Güss et al., 2015 ), papers about validity issues ( Goode and Beckmann, 2010 ; Greiff et al., 2013c ; Schweizer et al., 2013 ; Mainert et al., 2015 ; Funke et al., 2017 ; Greiff et al., 2017 , 2015b ; Kretzschmar et al., 2016 ; Kretzschmar, 2017 ), review papers and meta-analyses ( Osman, 2010 ; Stadler et al., 2015 ), and finally books ( Qudrat-Ullah, 2015 ; Csapó and Funke, 2017b ) and book chapters ( Funke, 2012 ; Hotaling et al., 2015 ; Funke and Greiff, 2017 ; Greiff and Funke, 2017 ; Csapó and Funke, 2017a ; Fischer et al., 2017 ; Molnàr et al., 2017 ; Tobinski and Fritz, 2017 ; Viehrig et al., 2017 ). In addition, a new “Journal of Dynamic Decision Making” (JDDM) has been launched ( Fischer et al., 2015 , 2016 ) to give the field an open-access outlet for research and discussion.

This paper aims to clarify aspects of validity: what should be meant by the term CPS and what not? This clarification seems necessary because misunderstandings in recent publications provide – from our point of view – a potentially misleading picture of the construct. We start this article with a historical review before attempting to systematize different positions. We conclude with a working definition.

Historical Review

The concept behind CPS goes back to the German phrase “komplexes Problemlösen” (CPS; the term “komplexes Problemlösen” was used as a book title by Funke, 1986 ). The concept was introduced in Germany by Dörner and colleagues in the mid-1970s (see Dörner et al., 1975 ; Dörner, 1975 ) for the first time. The German phrase was later translated to CPS in the titles of two edited volumes by Sternberg and Frensch (1991) and Frensch and Funke (1995a) that collected papers from different research traditions. Even though it looks as though the term was coined in the 1970s, Edwards (1962) used the term “dynamic decision making” to describe decisions that come in a sequence. He compared static with dynamic decision making, writing:

• simple  In dynamic situations, a new complication not found in the static situations arises. The environment in which the decision is set may be changing, either as a function of the sequence of decisions, or independently of them, or both. It is this possibility of an environment which changes while you collect information about it which makes the task of dynamic decision theory so difficult and so much fun. (p. 60)

The ability to solve complex problems is typically measured via dynamic systems that contain several interrelated variables that participants need to alter. Early work (see, e.g., Dörner, 1980 ) used a simulation scenario called “Lohhausen” that contained more than 2000 variables that represented the activities of a small town: Participants had to take over the role of a mayor for a simulated period of 10 years. The simulation condensed these ten years to ten hours in real time. Later, researchers used smaller dynamic systems as scenarios either based on linear equations (see, e.g., Funke, 1993 ) or on finite state automata (see, e.g., Buchner and Funke, 1993 ). In these contexts, CPS consisted of the identification and control of dynamic task environments that were previously unknown to the participants. Different task environments came along with different degrees of fidelity ( Gray, 2002 ).

According to Funke (2012) , the typical attributes of complex systems are (a) complexity of the problem situation which is usually represented by the sheer number of involved variables; (b) connectivity and mutual dependencies between involved variables; (c) dynamics of the situation, which reflects the role of time and developments within a system; (d) intransparency (in part or full) about the involved variables and their current values; and (e) polytely (greek term for “many goals”), representing goal conflicts on different levels of analysis. This mixture of features is similar to what is called VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) in modern approaches to management (e.g., Mack et al., 2016 ).

In his evaluation of the CPS movement, Sternberg (1995) compared (young) European approaches to CPS with (older) American research on expertise. His analysis of the differences between the European and American traditions shows advantages but also potential drawbacks for each side. He states (p. 301): “I believe that although there are problems with the European approach, it deals with some fundamental questions that American research scarcely addresses.” So, even though the echo of the European approach did not enjoy strong resonance in the US at that time, it was valued by scholars like Sternberg and others. Before attending to validity issues, we will first present a short review of different streams.

Different Approaches to CPS

In the short history of CPS research, different approaches can be identified ( Buchner, 1995 ; Fischer et al., 2017 ). To systematize, we differentiate between the following five lines of research:

• simple (a) The search for individual differences comprises studies identifying interindividual differences that affect the ability to solve complex problems. This line of research is reflected, for example, in the early work by Dörner et al. (1983) and their “Lohhausen” study. Here, naïve student participants took over the role of the mayor of a small simulated town named Lohhausen for a simulation period of ten years. According to the results of the authors, it is not intelligence (as measured by conventional IQ tests) that predicts performance, but it is the ability to stay calm in the face of a challenging situation and the ability to switch easily between an analytic mode of processing and a more holistic one.
• simple (b) The search for cognitive processes deals with the processes behind understanding complex dynamic systems. Representative of this line of research is, for example, Berry and Broadbent’s (1984) work on implicit and explicit learning processes when people interact with a dynamic system called “Sugar Production”. They found that those who perform best in controlling a dynamic system can do so implicitly, without explicit knowledge of details regarding the systems’ relations.
• simple (c) The search for system factors seeks to identify the aspects of dynamic systems that determine the difficulty of complex problems and make some problems harder than others. Representative of this line of research is, for example, work by Funke (1985) , who systematically varied the number of causal effects within a dynamic system or the presence/absence of eigendynamics. He found, for example, that solution quality decreases as the number of systems relations increases.
• simple (d) The psychometric approach develops measurement instruments that can be used as an alternative to classical IQ tests, as something that goes “beyond IQ”. The MicroDYN approach ( Wüstenberg et al., 2012 ) is representative for this line of research that presents an alternative to reasoning tests (like Raven matrices). These authors demonstrated that a small improvement in predicting school grade point average beyond reasoning is possible with MicroDYN tests.
• simple (e) The experimental approach explores CPS under different experimental conditions. This approach uses CPS assessment instruments to test hypotheses derived from psychological theories and is sometimes used in research about cognitive processes (see above). Exemplary for this line of research is the work by Rohe et al. (2016) , who test the usefulness of “motto goals” in the context of complex problems compared to more traditional learning and performance goals. Motto goals differ from pure performance goals by activating positive affect and should lead to better goal attainment especially in complex situations (the mentioned study found no effect).

To be clear: these five approaches are not mutually exclusive and do overlap. But the differentiation helps to identify different research communities and different traditions. These communities had different opinions about scaling complexity.

The Race for Complexity: Use of More and More Complex Systems

In the early years of CPS research, microworlds started with systems containing about 20 variables (“Tailorshop”), soon reached 60 variables (“Moro”), and culminated in systems with about 2000 variables (“Lohhausen”). This race for complexity ended with the introduction of the concept of “minimal complex systems” (MCS; Greiff and Funke, 2009 ; Funke and Greiff, 2017 ), which ushered in a search for the lower bound of complexity instead of the higher bound, which could not be defined as easily. The idea behind this concept was that whereas the upper limits of complexity are unbound, the lower limits might be identifiable. Imagine starting with a simple system containing two variables with a simple linear connection between them; then, step by step, increase the number of variables and/or the type of connections. One soon reaches a point where the system can no longer be considered simple and has become a “complex system”. This point represents a minimal complex system. Despite some research having been conducted in this direction, the point of transition from simple to complex has not been identified clearly as of yet.

Some years later, the original “minimal complex systems” approach ( Greiff and Funke, 2009 ) shifted to the “multiple complex systems” approach ( Greiff et al., 2013a ). This shift is more than a slight change in wording: it is important because it taps into the issue of validity directly. Minimal complex systems have been introduced in the context of challenges from large-scale assessments like PISA 2012 that measure new aspects of problem solving, namely interactive problems besides static problem solving ( Greiff and Funke, 2017 ). PISA 2012 required test developers to remain within testing time constraints (given by the school class schedule). Also, test developers needed a large item pool for the construction of a broad class of problem solving items. It was clear from the beginning that MCS deal with simple dynamic situations that require controlled interaction: the exploration and control of simple ticket machines, simple mobile phones, or simple MP3 players (all of these example domains were developed within PISA 2012) – rather than really complex situations like managerial or political decision making.

As a consequence of this subtle but important shift in interpreting the letters MCS, the definition of CPS became a subject of debate recently ( Funke, 2014a ; Greiff and Martin, 2014 ; Funke et al., 2017 ). In the words of Funke (2014b , p. 495):

• simple  It is funny that problems that nowadays come under the term ‘CPS’, are less complex (in terms of the previously described attributes of complex situations) than at the beginning of this new research tradition. The emphasis on psychometric qualities has led to a loss of variety. Systems thinking requires more than analyzing models with two or three linear equations – nonlinearity, cyclicity, rebound effects, etc. are inherent features of complex problems and should show up at least in some of the problems used for research and assessment purposes. Minimal complex systems run the danger of becoming minimal valid systems.

Searching for minimal complex systems is not the same as gaining insight into the way how humans deal with complexity and uncertainty. For psychometric purposes, it is appropriate to reduce complexity to a minimum; for understanding problem solving under conditions of overload, intransparency, and dynamics, it is necessary to realize those attributes with reasonable strength. This aspect is illustrated in the next section.

Importance of the Validity Issue

The most important reason for discussing the question of what complex problem solving is and what it is not stems from its phenomenology: if we lose sight of our phenomena, we are no longer doing good psychology. The relevant phenomena in the context of complex problems encompass many important aspects. In this section, we discuss four phenomena that are specific to complex problems. We consider these phenomena as critical for theory development and for the construction of assessment instruments (i.e., microworlds). These phenomena require theories for explaining them and they require assessment instruments eliciting them in a reliable way.

The first phenomenon is the emergency reaction of the intellectual system ( Dörner, 1980 ): When dealing with complex systems, actors tend to (a) reduce their intellectual level by decreasing self-reflections, by decreasing their intentions, by stereotyping, and by reducing their realization of intentions, (b) they show a tendency for fast action with increased readiness for risk, with increased violations of rules, and with increased tendency to escape the situation, and (c) they degenerate their hypotheses formation by construction of more global hypotheses and reduced tests of hypotheses, by increasing entrenchment, and by decontextualizing their goals. This phenomenon illustrates the strong connection between cognition, emotion, and motivation that has been emphasized by Dörner (see, e.g., Dörner and Güss, 2013 ) from the beginning of his research tradition; the emergency reaction reveals a shift in the mode of information processing under the pressure of complexity.

The second phenomenon comprises cross-cultural differences with respect to strategy use ( Strohschneider and Güss, 1999 ; Güss and Wiley, 2007 ; Güss et al., 2015 ). Results from complex task environments illustrate the strong influence of context and background knowledge to an extent that cannot be found for knowledge-poor problems. For example, in a comparison between Brazilian and German participants, it turned out that Brazilians accept the given problem descriptions and are more optimistic about the results of their efforts, whereas Germans tend to inquire more about the background of the problems and take a more active approach but are less optimistic (according to Strohschneider and Güss, 1998 , p. 695).

The third phenomenon relates to failures that occur during the planning and acting stages ( Jansson, 1994 ; Ramnarayan et al., 1997 ), illustrating that rational procedures seem to be unlikely to be used in complex situations. The potential for failures ( Dörner, 1996 ) rises with the complexity of the problem. Jansson (1994) presents seven major areas for failures with complex situations: acting directly on current feedback; insufficient systematization; insufficient control of hypotheses and strategies; lack of self-reflection; selective information gathering; selective decision making; and thematic vagabonding.

The fourth phenomenon describes (a lack of) training and transfer effects ( Kretzschmar and Süß, 2015 ), which again illustrates the context dependency of strategies and knowledge (i.e., there is no strategy that is so universal that it can be used in many different problem situations). In their own experiment, the authors could show training effects only for knowledge acquisition, not for knowledge application. Only with specific feedback, performance in complex environments can be increased ( Engelhart et al., 2017 ).

These four phenomena illustrate why the type of complexity (or degree of simplicity) used in research really matters. Furthermore, they demonstrate effects that are specific for complex problems, but not for toy problems. These phenomena direct the attention to the important question: does the stimulus material used (i.e., the computer-simulated microworld) tap and elicit the manifold of phenomena described above?

Dealing with partly unknown complex systems requires courage, wisdom, knowledge, grit, and creativity. In creativity research, “little c” and “BIG C” are used to differentiate between everyday creativity and eminent creativity ( Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007 ; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009 ). Everyday creativity is important for solving everyday problems (e.g., finding a clever fix for a broken spoke on my bicycle), eminent creativity changes the world (e.g., inventing solar cells for energy production). Maybe problem solving research should use a similar differentiation between “little p” and “BIG P” to mark toy problems on the one side and big societal challenges on the other. The question then remains: what can we learn about BIG P by studying little p? What phenomena are present in both types, and what phenomena are unique to each of the two extremes?

Discussing research on CPS requires reflecting on the field’s research methods. Even if the experimental approach has been successful for testing hypotheses (for an overview of older work, see Funke, 1995 ), other methods might provide additional and novel insights. Complex phenomena require complex approaches to understand them. The complex nature of complex systems imposes limitations on psychological experiments: The more complex the environments, the more difficult is it to keep conditions under experimental control. And if experiments have to be run in labs one should bring enough complexity into the lab to establish the phenomena mentioned, at least in part.

There are interesting options to be explored (again): think-aloud protocols , which have been discredited for many years ( Nisbett and Wilson, 1977 ) and yet are a valuable source for theory testing ( Ericsson and Simon, 1983 ); introspection ( Jäkel and Schreiber, 2013 ), which seems to be banned from psychological methods but nevertheless offers insights into thought processes; the use of life-streaming ( Wendt, 2017 ), a medium in which streamers generate a video stream of think-aloud data in computer-gaming; political decision-making ( Dhami et al., 2015 ) that demonstrates error-proneness in groups; historical case studies ( Dörner and Güss, 2011 ) that give insights into the thinking styles of political leaders; the use of the critical incident technique ( Reuschenbach, 2008 ) to construct complex scenarios; and simulations with different degrees of fidelity ( Gray, 2002 ).

The methods tool box is full of instruments that have to be explored more carefully before any individual instrument receives a ban or research narrows its focus to only one paradigm for data collection. Brehmer and Dörner (1993) discussed the tensions between “research in the laboratory and research in the field”, optimistically concluding “that the new methodology of computer-simulated microworlds will provide us with the means to bridge the gap between the laboratory and the field” (p. 183). The idea behind this optimism was that computer-simulated scenarios would bring more complexity from the outside world into the controlled lab environment. But this is not true for all simulated scenarios. In his paper on simulated environments, Gray (2002) differentiated computer-simulated environments with respect to three dimensions: (1) tractability (“the more training subjects require before they can use a simulated task environment, the less tractable it is”, p. 211), correspondence (“High correspondence simulated task environments simulate many aspects of one task environment. Low correspondence simulated task environments simulate one aspect of many task environments”, p. 214), and engagement (“A simulated task environment is engaging to the degree to which it involves and occupies the participants; that is, the degree to which they agree to take it seriously”, p. 217). But the mere fact that a task is called a “computer-simulated task environment” does not mean anything specific in terms of these three dimensions. This is one of several reasons why we should differentiate between those studies that do not address the core features of CPS and those that do.

What is not CPS?

Even though a growing number of references claiming to deal with complex problems exist (e.g., Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2015 ; Greiff et al., 2016 ), it would be better to label the requirements within these tasks “dynamic problem solving,” as it has been done adequately in earlier work ( Greiff et al., 2012 ). The dynamics behind on-off-switches ( Thimbleby, 2007 ) are remarkable but not really complex. Small nonlinear systems that exhibit stunningly complex and unstable behavior do exist – but they are not used in psychometric assessments of so-called CPS. There are other small systems (like MicroDYN scenarios: Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2014 ) that exhibit simple forms of system behavior that are completely predictable and stable. This type of simple systems is used frequently. It is even offered commercially as a complex problem-solving test called COMPRO ( Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2015 ) for business applications. But a closer look reveals that the label is not used correctly; within COMPRO, the used linear equations are far from being complex and the system can be handled properly by using only one strategy (see for more details Funke et al., 2017 ).

Why do simple linear systems not fall within CPS? At the surface, nonlinear and linear systems might appear similar because both only include 3–5 variables. But the difference is in terms of systems behavior as well as strategies and learning. If the behavior is simple (as in linear systems where more input is related to more output and vice versa), the system can be easily understood (participants in the MicroDYN world have 3 minutes to explore a complex system). If the behavior is complex (as in systems that contain strange attractors or negative feedback loops), things become more complicated and much more observation is needed to identify the hidden structure of the unknown system ( Berry and Broadbent, 1984 ; Hundertmark et al., 2015 ).

Another issue is learning. If tasks can be solved using a single (and not so complicated) strategy, steep learning curves are to be expected. The shift from problem solving to learned routine behavior occurs rapidly, as was demonstrated by Luchins (1942) . In his water jar experiments, participants quickly acquired a specific strategy (a mental set) for solving certain measurement problems that they later continued applying to problems that would have allowed for easier approaches. In the case of complex systems, learning can occur only on very general, abstract levels because it is difficult for human observers to make specific predictions. Routines dealing with complex systems are quite different from routines relating to linear systems.

What should not be studied under the label of CPS are pure learning effects, multiple-cue probability learning, or tasks that can be solved using a single strategy. This last issue is a problem for MicroDYN tasks that rely strongly on the VOTAT strategy (“vary one thing at a time”; see Tschirgi, 1980 ). In real-life, it is hard to imagine a business manager trying to solve her or his problems by means of VOTAT.

What is CPS?

In the early days of CPS research, planet Earth’s dynamics and complexities gained attention through such books as “The limits to growth” ( Meadows et al., 1972 ) and “Beyond the limits” ( Meadows et al., 1992 ). In the current decade, for example, the World Economic Forum (2016) attempts to identify the complexities and risks of our modern world. In order to understand the meaning of complexity and uncertainty, taking a look at the worlds’ most pressing issues is helpful. Searching for strategies to cope with these problems is a difficult task: surely there is no place for the simple principle of “vary-one-thing-at-a-time” (VOTAT) when it comes to global problems. The VOTAT strategy is helpful in the context of simple problems ( Wüstenberg et al., 2014 ); therefore, whether or not VOTAT is helpful in a given problem situation helps us distinguish simple from complex problems.

Because there exist no clear-cut strategies for complex problems, typical failures occur when dealing with uncertainty ( Dörner, 1996 ; Güss et al., 2015 ). Ramnarayan et al. (1997) put together a list of generic errors (e.g., not developing adequate action plans; lack of background control; learning from experience blocked by stereotype knowledge; reactive instead of proactive action) that are typical of knowledge-rich complex systems but cannot be found in simple problems.

Complex problem solving is not a one-dimensional, low-level construct. On the contrary, CPS is a multi-dimensional bundle of competencies existing at a high level of abstraction, similar to intelligence (but going beyond IQ). As Funke et al. (2018) state: “Assessment of transversal (in educational contexts: cross-curricular) competencies cannot be done with one or two types of assessment. The plurality of skills and competencies requires a plurality of assessment instruments.”

There are at least three different aspects of complex systems that are part of our understanding of a complex system: (1) a complex system can be described at different levels of abstraction; (2) a complex system develops over time, has a history, a current state, and a (potentially unpredictable) future; (3) a complex system is knowledge-rich and activates a large semantic network, together with a broad list of potential strategies (domain-specific as well as domain-general).

Complex problem solving is not only a cognitive process but is also an emotional one ( Spering et al., 2005 ; Barth and Funke, 2010 ) and strongly dependent on motivation (low-stakes versus high-stakes testing; see Hermes and Stelling, 2016 ).

Furthermore, CPS is a dynamic process unfolding over time, with different phases and with more differentiation than simply knowledge acquisition and knowledge application. Ideally, the process should entail identifying problems (see Dillon, 1982 ; Lee and Cho, 2007 ), even if in experimental settings, problems are provided to participants a priori . The more complex and open a given situation, the more options can be generated (T. S. Schweizer et al., 2016 ). In closed problems, these processes do not occur in the same way.

In analogy to the difference between formative (process-oriented) and summative (result-oriented) assessment ( Wiliam and Black, 1996 ; Bennett, 2011 ), CPS should not be reduced to the mere outcome of a solution process. The process leading up to the solution, including detours and errors made along the way, might provide a more differentiated impression of a person’s problem-solving abilities and competencies than the final result of such a process. This is one of the reasons why CPS environments are not, in fact, complex intelligence tests: research on CPS is not only about the outcome of the decision process, but it is also about the problem-solving process itself.

Complex problem solving is part of our daily life: finding the right person to share one’s life with, choosing a career that not only makes money, but that also makes us happy. Of course, CPS is not restricted to personal problems – life on Earth gives us many hard nuts to crack: climate change, population growth, the threat of war, the use and distribution of natural resources. In sum, many societal challenges can be seen as complex problems. To reduce that complexity to a one-hour lab activity on a random Friday afternoon puts it out of context and does not address CPS issues.

Theories about CPS should specify which populations they apply to. Across populations, one thing to consider is prior knowledge. CPS research with experts (e.g., Dew et al., 2009 ) is quite different from problem solving research using tasks that intentionally do not require any specific prior knowledge (see, e.g., Beckmann and Goode, 2014 ).

More than 20 years ago, Frensch and Funke (1995b) defined CPS as follows:

• simple  CPS occurs to overcome barriers between a given state and a desired goal state by means of behavioral and/or cognitive, multi-step activities. The given state, goal state, and barriers between given state and goal state are complex, change dynamically during problem solving, and are intransparent. The exact properties of the given state, goal state, and barriers are unknown to the solver at the outset. CPS implies the efficient interaction between a solver and the situational requirements of the task, and involves a solver’s cognitive, emotional, personal, and social abilities and knowledge. (p. 18)

The above definition is rather formal and does not account for content or relations between the simulation and the real world. In a sense, we need a new definition of CPS that addresses these issues. Based on our previous arguments, we propose the following working definition:

• simple  Complex problem solving is a collection of self-regulated psychological processes and activities necessary in dynamic environments to achieve ill-defined goals that cannot be reached by routine actions. Creative combinations of knowledge and a broad set of strategies are needed. Solutions are often more bricolage than perfect or optimal. The problem-solving process combines cognitive, emotional, and motivational aspects, particularly in high-stakes situations. Complex problems usually involve knowledge-rich requirements and collaboration among different persons.

The main differences to the older definition lie in the emphasis on (a) the self-regulation of processes, (b) creativity (as opposed to routine behavior), (c) the bricolage type of solution, and (d) the role of high-stakes challenges. Our new definition incorporates some aspects that have been discussed in this review but were not reflected in the 1995 definition, which focused on attributes of complex problems like dynamics or intransparency.

This leads us to the final reflection about the role of CPS for dealing with uncertainty and complexity in real life. We will distinguish thinking from reasoning and introduce the sense of possibility as an important aspect of validity.

CPS as Combining Reasoning and Thinking in an Uncertain Reality

Leading up to the Battle of Borodino in Leo Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky explains the concept of war to his friend Pierre. Pierre expects war to resemble a game of chess: You position the troops and attempt to defeat your opponent by moving them in different directions.

“Far from it!”, Andrei responds. “In chess, you know the knight and his moves, you know the pawn and his combat strength. While in war, a battalion is sometimes stronger than a division and sometimes weaker than a company; it all depends on circumstances that can never be known. In war, you do not know the position of your enemy; some things you might be able to observe, some things you have to divine (but that depends on your ability to do so!) and many things cannot even be guessed at. In chess, you can see all of your opponent’s possible moves. In war, that is impossible. If you decide to attack, you cannot know whether the necessary conditions are met for you to succeed. Many a time, you cannot even know whether your troops will follow your orders…”

In essence, war is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. A good commander (or politician) can add to that what he or she sees, tentatively fill in the blanks – and not just by means of logical deduction but also by intelligently bridging missing links. A bad commander extrapolates from what he sees and thus arrives at improper conclusions.

Many languages differentiate between two modes of mentalizing; for instance, the English language distinguishes between ‘thinking’ and ‘reasoning’. Reasoning denotes acute and exact mentalizing involving logical deductions. Such deductions are usually based on evidence and counterevidence. Thinking, however, is what is required to write novels. It is the construction of an initially unknown reality. But it is not a pipe dream, an unfounded process of fabrication. Rather, thinking asks us to imagine reality (“Wirklichkeitsfantasie”). In other words, a novelist has to possess a “sense of possibility” (“Möglichkeitssinn”, Robert Musil; in German, sense of possibility is often used synonymously with imagination even though imagination is not the same as sense of possibility, for imagination also encapsulates the impossible). This sense of possibility entails knowing the whole (or several wholes) or being able to construe an unknown whole that could accommodate a known part. The whole has to align with sociological and geographical givens, with the mentality of certain peoples or groups, and with the laws of physics and chemistry. Otherwise, the entire venture is ill-founded. A sense of possibility does not aim for the moon but imagines something that might be possible but has not been considered possible or even potentially possible so far.

Thinking is a means to eliminate uncertainty. This process requires both of the modes of thinking we have discussed thus far. Economic, political, or ecological decisions require us to first consider the situation at hand. Though certain situational aspects can be known, but many cannot. In fact, von Clausewitz (1832) posits that only about 25% of the necessary information is available when a military decision needs to be made. Even then, there is no way to guarantee that whatever information is available is also correct: Even if a piece of information was completely accurate yesterday, it might no longer apply today.

Once our sense of possibility has helped grasping a situation, problem solvers need to call on their reasoning skills. Not every situation requires the same action, and we may want to act this way or another to reach this or that goal. This appears logical, but it is a logic based on constantly shifting grounds: We cannot know whether necessary conditions are met, sometimes the assumptions we have made later turn out to be incorrect, and sometimes we have to revise our assumptions or make completely new ones. It is necessary to constantly switch between our sense of possibility and our sense of reality, that is, to switch between thinking and reasoning. It is an arduous process, and some people handle it well, while others do not.

If we are to believe Tuchman’s (1984) book, “The March of Folly”, most politicians and commanders are fools. According to Tuchman, not much has changed in the 3300 years that have elapsed since the misguided Trojans decided to welcome the left-behind wooden horse into their city that would end up dismantling Troy’s defensive walls. The Trojans, too, had been warned, but decided not to heed the warning. Although Laocoön had revealed the horse’s true nature to them by attacking it with a spear, making the weapons inside the horse ring, the Trojans refused to see the forest for the trees. They did not want to listen, they wanted the war to be over, and this desire ended up shaping their perception.

The objective of psychology is to predict and explain human actions and behavior as accurately as possible. However, thinking cannot be investigated by limiting its study to neatly confined fractions of reality such as the realms of propositional logic, chess, Go tasks, the Tower of Hanoi, and so forth. Within these systems, there is little need for a sense of possibility. But a sense of possibility – the ability to divine and construe an unknown reality – is at least as important as logical reasoning skills. Not researching the sense of possibility limits the validity of psychological research. All economic and political decision making draws upon this sense of possibility. By not exploring it, psychological research dedicated to the study of thinking cannot further the understanding of politicians’ competence and the reasons that underlie political mistakes. Christopher Clark identifies European diplomats’, politicians’, and commanders’ inability to form an accurate representation of reality as a reason for the outbreak of World War I. According to Clark’s (2012) book, “The Sleepwalkers”, the politicians of the time lived in their own make-believe world, wrongfully assuming that it was the same world everyone else inhabited. If CPS research wants to make significant contributions to the world, it has to acknowledge complexity and uncertainty as important aspects of it.

For more than 40 years, CPS has been a new subject of psychological research. During this time period, the initial emphasis on analyzing how humans deal with complex, dynamic, and uncertain situations has been lost. What is subsumed under the heading of CPS in modern research has lost the original complexities of real-life problems. From our point of view, the challenges of the 21st century require a return to the origins of this research tradition. We would encourage researchers in the field of problem solving to come back to the original ideas. There is enough complexity and uncertainty in the world to be studied. Improving our understanding of how humans deal with these global and pressing problems would be a worthwhile enterprise.

Author Contributions

JF drafted a first version of the manuscript, DD added further text and commented on the draft. JF finalized the manuscript.

Authors Note

After more than 40 years of controversial discussions between both authors, this is the first joint paper. We are happy to have done this now! We have found common ground!

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for the continuous support of their research over many years. Thanks to Daniel Holt for his comments on validity issues, thanks to Julia Nolte who helped us by translating German text excerpts into readable English and helped us, together with Keri Hartman, to improve our style and grammar – thanks for that! We also thank the two reviewers for their helpful critical comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Finally, we acknowledge financial support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg within their funding programme Open Access Publishing .

1 The fMRI-paper from Anderson (2012) uses the term “complex problem solving” for tasks that do not fall in our understanding of CPS and is therefore excluded from this list.

• Alison L., van den Heuvel C., Waring S., Power N., Long A., O’Hara T., et al. (2013). Immersive simulated learning environments for researching critical incidents: a knowledge synthesis of the literature and experiences of studying high-risk strategic decision making. J. Cogn. Eng. Deci. Mak. 7 255–272. 10.1177/1555343412468113 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson J. R. (2012). Tracking problem solving by multivariate pattern analysis and hidden markov model algorithms. Neuropsychologia 50 487–498. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.07.025 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barth C. M., Funke J. (2010). Negative affective environments improve complex solving performance. Cogn. Emot. 24 1259–1268. 10.1080/02699930903223766 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckmann J. F., Goode N. (2014). The benefit of being naïve and knowing it: the unfavourable impact of perceived context familiarity on learning in complex problem solving tasks. Instruct. Sci. 42 271–290. 10.1007/s11251-013-9280-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beghetto R. A., Kaufman J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: a case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychol. Aesthetics Creat. Arts 1 73–79. 10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 18 5–25. 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry D. C., Broadbent D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 36 209–231. 10.1080/14640748408402156 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blech C., Funke J. (2010). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too: how induced goal conflicts affect complex problem solving. Open Psychol. J. 3 42–53. 10.2174/1874350101003010042 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brehmer B., Dörner D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9 171–184. 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchner A. (1995). “Basic topics and approaches to the study of complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 27–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchner A., Funke J. (1993). Finite state automata: dynamic task environments in problem solving research. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 46A , 83–118. 10.1080/14640749308401068 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark C. (2012). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 . London: Allen Lane. [ Google Scholar ]
• Csapó B., Funke J. (2017a). “The development and assessment of problem solving in 21st-century schools,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 19–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Csapó B., Funke J. (eds) (2017b). The Nature of Problem Solving. Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Danner D., Hagemann D., Holt D. V., Hager M., Schankin A., Wüstenberg S., et al. (2011a). Measuring performance in dynamic decision making. Reliability and validity of the Tailorshop simulation. J. Ind. Differ. 32 225–233. 10.1027/1614-0001/a000055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danner D., Hagemann D., Schankin A., Hager M., Funke J. (2011b). Beyond IQ: a latent state-trait analysis of general intelligence, dynamic decision making, and implicit learning. Intelligence 39 323–334. 10.1016/j.intell.2011.06.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dew N., Read S., Sarasvathy S. D., Wiltbank R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: differences between experts and novices. J. Bus. Ventur. 24 287–309. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhami M. K., Mandel D. R., Mellers B. A., Tetlock P. E. (2015). Improving intelligence analysis with decision science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10 753–757. 10.1177/1745691615598511 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dillon J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. J. Creat. Behav. 16 97–111. 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1982.tb00326.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1975). Wie Menschen eine Welt verbessern wollten [How people wanted to improve a world]. Bild Der Wissenschaft 12 48–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1980). On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulat. Gam. 11 87–106. 10.1177/104687818001100108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1996). The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. New York, NY: Basic Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Drewes U., Reither F. (1975). “Über das Problemlösen in sehr komplexen Realitätsbereichen,” in Bericht über den 29. Kongreß der DGfPs in Salzburg 1974 Band 1 , ed. Tack W. H. (Göttingen: Hogrefe; ), 339–340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Güss C. D. (2011). A psychological analysis of Adolf Hitler’s decision making as commander in chief: summa confidentia et nimius metus. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 15 37–49. 10.1037/a0022375 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Güss C. D. (2013). PSI: a computational architecture of cognition, motivation, and emotion. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17 297–317. 10.1037/a0032947 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Kreuzig H. W., Reither F., Stäudel T. (1983). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern: Huber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ederer P., Patt A., Greiff S. (2016). Complex problem-solving skills and innovativeness – evidence from occupational testing and regional data. Eur. J. Educ. 51 244–256. 10.1111/ejed.12176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edwards W. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabiIistic information processing. Hum. Factors 4 59–73. 10.1177/001872086200400201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engelhart M., Funke J., Sager S. (2017). A web-based feedback study on optimization-based training and analysis of human decision making. J. Dynamic Dec. Mak. 3 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson K. A., Simon H. A. (1983). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports As Data. Cambridge, MA: Bradford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer A., Greiff S., Funke J. (2017). “The history of complex problem solving,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 107–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer A., Holt D. V., Funke J. (2015). Promoting the growing field of dynamic decision making. J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 1 1–3. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23807 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer A., Holt D. V., Funke J. (2016). The first year of the “journal of dynamic decision making.” J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 2 1–2. 10.11588/jddm.2016.1.28995 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer A., Neubert J. C. (2015). The multiple faces of complex problems: a model of problem solving competency and its implications for training and assessment. J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 1 1–14. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23945 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frensch P. A., Funke J. (eds) (1995a). Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frensch P. A., Funke J. (1995b). “Definitions, traditions, and a general framework for understanding complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; ), 3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frischkorn G. T., Greiff S., Wüstenberg S. (2014). The development of complex problem solving in adolescence: a latent growth curve analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 106 1004–1020. 10.1037/a0037114 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1985). Steuerung dynamischer Systeme durch Aufbau und Anwendung subjektiver Kausalmodelle. Z. Psychol. 193 435–457. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1986). Komplexes Problemlösen - Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven [Complex Problem Solving: Survey and Perspectives]. Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1993). “Microworlds based on linear equation systems: a new approach to complex problem solving and experimental results,” in The Cognitive Psychology of Knowledge , eds Strube G., Wender K.-F. (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers; ), 313–330. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1995). “Experimental research on complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 243–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2010). Complex problem solving: a case for complex cognition? Cogn. Process. 11 133–142. 10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2012). “Complex problem solving,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning Vol. 38 ed. Seel N. M. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 682–685. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2014a). Analysis of minimal complex systems and complex problem solving require different forms of causal cognition. Front. Psychol. 5 : 739 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00739 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2014b). “Problem solving: what are the important questions?,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , eds Bello P., Guarini M., McShane M., Scassellati B. (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society; ), 493–498. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J., Fischer A., Holt D. V. (2017). When less is less: solving multiple simple problems is not complex problem solving—A comment on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5 : 5 10.3390/jintelligence5010005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J., Fischer A., Holt D. V. (2018). “Competencies for complexity: problem solving in the 21st century,” in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills , eds Care E., Griffin P., Wilson M. (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J., Greiff S. (2017). “Dynamic problem solving: multiple-item testing based on minimally complex systems,” in Competence Assessment in Education. Research, Models and Instruments , eds Leutner D., Fleischer J., Grünkorn J., Klieme E. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 427–443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobert J. D., Kim Y. J., Pedro M. A. S., Kennedy M., Betts C. G. (2015). Using educational data mining to assess students’ skills at designing and conducting experiments within a complex systems microworld. Think. Skills Creat. 18 81–90. 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.04.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goode N., Beckmann J. F. (2010). You need to know: there is a causal relationship between structural knowledge and control performance in complex problem solving tasks. Intelligence 38 345–352. 10.1016/j.intell.2010.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray W. D. (2002). Simulated task environments: the role of high-fidelity simulations, scaled worlds, synthetic environments, and laboratory tasks in basic and applied cognitive research. Cogn. Sci. Q. 2 205–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Fischer A. (2013). Measuring complex problem solving: an educational application of psychological theories. J. Educ. Res. 5 38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Fischer A., Stadler M., Wüstenberg S. (2015a). Assessing complex problem-solving skills with multiple complex systems. Think. Reason. 21 356–382. 10.1080/13546783.2014.989263 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Stadler M., Sonnleitner P., Wolff C., Martin R. (2015b). Sometimes less is more: comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence 50 100–113. 10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Fischer A., Wüstenberg S., Sonnleitner P., Brunner M., Martin R. (2013a). A multitrait–multimethod study of assessment instruments for complex problem solving. Intelligence 41 579–596. 10.1016/j.intell.2013.07.012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Holt D. V., Funke J. (2013b). Perspectives on problem solving in educational assessment: analytical, interactive, and collaborative problem solving. J. Problem Solv. 5 71–91. 10.7771/1932-6246.1153 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Wüstenberg S., Molnár G., Fischer A., Funke J., Csapó B. (2013c). Complex problem solving in educational contexts—something beyond g: concept, assessment, measurement invariance, and construct validity. J. Educ. Psychol. 105 364–379. 10.1037/a0031856 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Funke J. (2009). “Measuring complex problem solving: the MicroDYN approach,” in The Transition to Computer-Based Assessment. New Approaches to Skills Assessment and Implications for Large-Scale Testing , eds Scheuermann F., Björnsson J. (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; ), 157–163. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Funke J. (2017). “Interactive problem solving: exploring the potential of minimal complex systems,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 93–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Martin R. (2014). What you see is what you (don’t) get: a comment on Funke’s (2014) opinion paper. Front. Psychol. 5 : 1120 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01120 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Neubert J. C. (2014). On the relation of complex problem solving, personality, fluid intelligence, and academic achievement. Learn. Ind. Diff. 36 37–48. 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.08.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Niepel C., Scherer R., Martin R. (2016). Understanding students’ performance in a computer-based assessment of complex problem solving: an analysis of behavioral data from computer-generated log files. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61 36–46. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.095 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Stadler M., Sonnleitner P., Wolff C., Martin R. (2017). Sometimes more is too much: a rejoinder to the commentaries on Greif et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5 : 6 10.3390/jintelligence5010006 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Wüstenberg S. (2014). Assessment with microworlds using MicroDYN: measurement invariance and latent mean comparisons. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 1 1–11. 10.1027/1015-5759/a000194 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Wüstenberg S. (2015). Komplexer Problemlösetest COMPRO [Complex Problem-Solving Test COMPRO]. Mödling: Schuhfried. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Wüstenberg S., Funke J. (2012). Dynamic problem solving: a new assessment perspective. Appl. Psychol. Measure. 36 189–213. 10.1177/0146621612439620 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffin P., Care E. (2015). “The ATC21S method,” in Assessment and Taching of 21st Century Skills , eds Griffin P., Care E. (Dordrecht, NL: Springer; ), 3–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Güss C. D., Dörner D. (2011). Cultural differences in dynamic decision-making strategies in a non-linear, time-delayed task. Cogn. Syst. Res. 12 365–376. 10.1016/j.cogsys.2010.12.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güss C. D., Tuason M. T., Orduña L. V. (2015). Strategies, tactics, and errors in dynamic decision making in an Asian sample. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1 1–14. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.13131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güss C. D., Wiley B. (2007). Metacognition of problem-solving strategies in Brazil, India, and the United States. J. Cogn. Cult. 7 1–25. 10.1163/156853707X171793 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herde C. N., Wüstenberg S., Greiff S. (2016). Assessment of complex problem solving: what we know and what we don’t know. Appl. Meas. Educ. 29 265–277. 10.1080/08957347.2016.1209208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermes M., Stelling D. (2016). Context matters, but how much? Latent state – trait analysis of cognitive ability assessments. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 24 285–295. 10.1111/ijsa.12147 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hotaling J. M., Fakhari P., Busemeyer J. R. (2015). “Dynamic decision making,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 2nd Edn, eds Smelser N. J., Batles P. B. (New York, NY: Elsevier; ), 709–714. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hundertmark J., Holt D. V., Fischer A., Said N., Fischer H. (2015). System structure and cognitive ability as predictors of performance in dynamic system control tasks. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1 1–10. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.26416 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jäkel F., Schreiber C. (2013). Introspection in problem solving. J. Problem Solv. 6 20–33. 10.7771/1932-6246.1131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jansson A. (1994). Pathologies in dynamic decision making: consequences or precursors of failure? Sprache Kogn. 13 160–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman J. C., Beghetto R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four c model of creativity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 13 1–12. 10.1037/a0013688 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knauff M., Wolf A. G. (2010). Complex cognition: the science of human reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. Cogn. Process. 11 99–102. 10.1007/s10339-010-0362-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar A. (2017). Sometimes less is not enough: a commentary on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5 : 4 10.3390/jintelligence5010004 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar A., Neubert J. C., Wüstenberg S., Greiff S. (2016). Construct validity of complex problem solving: a comprehensive view on different facets of intelligence and school grades. Intelligence 54 55–69. 10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar A., Süß H.-M. (2015). A study on the training of complex problem solving competence. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1 1–14. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.15455 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee H., Cho Y. (2007). Factors affecting problem finding depending on degree of structure of problem situation. J. Educ. Res. 101 113–123. 10.3200/JOER.101.2.113-125 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leutner D., Fleischer J., Wirth J., Greiff S., Funke J. (2012). Analytische und dynamische Problemlösekompetenz im Lichte internationaler Schulleistungsvergleichsstudien: Untersuchungen zur Dimensionalität. Psychol. Rundschau 63 34–42. 10.1026/0033-3042/a000108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luchins A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: the effect of einstellung. Psychol. Monogr. 54 1–95. 10.1037/h0093502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mack O., Khare A., Krämer A., Burgartz T. (eds) (2016). Managing in a VUCA world. Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mainert J., Kretzschmar A., Neubert J. C., Greiff S. (2015). Linking complex problem solving and general mental ability to career advancement: does a transversal skill reveal incremental predictive validity? Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 34 393–411. 10.1080/02601370.2015.1060024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mainzer K. (2009). Challenges of complexity in the 21st century. An interdisciplinary introduction. Eur. Rev. 17 219–236. 10.1017/S1062798709000714 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadows D. H., Meadows D. L., Randers J. (1992). Beyond the Limits. Vermont, VA: Chelsea Green Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadows D. H., Meadows D. L., Randers J., Behrens W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. New York, NY: Universe Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meißner A., Greiff S., Frischkorn G. T., Steinmayr R. (2016). Predicting complex problem solving and school grades with working memory and ability self-concept. Learn. Ind. Differ. 49 323–331. 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.04.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnàr G., Greiff S., Wüstenberg S., Fischer A. (2017). “Empirical study of computer-based assessment of domain-general complex problem-solving skills,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 125–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newell A., Shaw J. C., Simon H. A. (1959). A general problem-solving program for a computer. Comput. Automat. 8 10–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nisbett R. E., Wilson T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84 231–259. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2014). “PISA 2012 results,” in Creative Problem Solving: Students’ Skills in Tackling Real-Life problems , Vol. 5 (Paris: OECD Publishing; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Osman M. (2010). Controlling uncertainty: a review of human behavior in complex dynamic environments. Psychol. Bull. 136 65–86. 10.1037/a0017815 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osman M. (2012). The role of reward in dynamic decision making. Front. Neurosci. 6 : 35 10.3389/fnins.2012.00035 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qudrat-Ullah H. (2015). Better Decision Making in Complex, Dynamic Tasks. Training with Human-Facilitated Interactive Learning Environments. Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramnarayan S., Strohschneider S., Schaub H. (1997). Trappings of expertise and the pursuit of failure. Simulat. Gam. 28 28–43. 10.1177/1046878197281004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reuschenbach B. (2008). Planen und Problemlösen im Komplexen Handlungsfeld Pflege. Berlin: Logos. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rohe M., Funke J., Storch M., Weber J. (2016). Can motto goals outperform learning and performance goals? Influence of goal setting on performance, intrinsic motivation, processing style, and affect in a complex problem solving task. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 2 1–15. 10.11588/jddm.2016.1.28510 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scherer R., Greiff S., Hautamäki J. (2015). Exploring the relation between time on task and ability in complex problem solving. Intelligence 48 37–50. 10.1016/j.intell.2014.10.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoppek W., Fischer A. (2015). Complex problem solving – single ability or complex phenomenon? Front. Psychol. 6 : 1669 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01669 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schraw G., Dunkle M., Bendixen L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 9 523–538. 10.1002/acp.2350090605 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweizer F., Wüstenberg S., Greiff S. (2013). Validity of the MicroDYN approach: complex problem solving predicts school grades beyond working memory capacity. Learn. Ind. Differ. 24 42–52. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweizer T. S., Schmalenberger K. M., Eisenlohr-Moul T. A., Mojzisch A., Kaiser S., Funke J. (2016). Cognitive and affective aspects of creative option generation in everyday life situations. Front. Psychol. 7 : 1132 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01132 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selten R., Pittnauer S., Hohnisch M. (2012). Dealing with dynamic decision problems when knowledge of the environment is limited: an approach based on goal systems. J. Behav. Deci. Mak. 25 443–457. 10.1002/bdm.738 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations , 2nd Edn New York, NY: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnleitner P., Brunner M., Keller U., Martin R. (2014). Differential relations between facets of complex problem solving and students’ immigration background. J. Educ. Psychol. 106 681–695. 10.1037/a0035506 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spering M., Wagener D., Funke J. (2005). The role of emotions in complex problem solving. Cogn. Emot. 19 1252–1261. 10.1080/02699930500304886 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stadler M., Becker N., Gödker M., Leutner D., Greiff S. (2015). Complex problem solving and intelligence: a meta-analysis. Intelligence 53 92–101. 10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stadler M., Niepel C., Greiff S. (2016). Easily too difficult: estimating item difficulty in computer simulated microworlds. Comput. Hum. Behav. 65 100–106. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. (1995). “Expertise in complex problem solving: a comparison of alternative conceptions,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 295–321. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Frensch P. A. (1991). Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms. (eds) Sternberg R. J., Frensch P. A. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strohschneider S., Güss C. D. (1998). Planning and problem solving: differences between brazilian and german students. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 29 695–716. 10.1177/0022022198296002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strohschneider S., Güss C. D. (1999). The fate of the Moros: a cross-cultural exploration of strategies in complex and dynamic decision making. Int. J. Psychol. 34 235–252. 10.1080/002075999399873 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thimbleby H. (2007). Press On. Principles of Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobinski D. A., Fritz A. (2017). “EcoSphere: a new paradigm for problem solving in complex systems,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 211–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tremblay S., Gagnon J.-F., Lafond D., Hodgetts H. M., Doiron M., Jeuniaux P. P. J. M. H. (2017). A cognitive prosthesis for complex decision-making. Appl. Ergon. 58 349–360. 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tschirgi J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: a hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Dev. 51 1–10. 10.2307/1129583 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuchman B. W. (1984). The March of Folly. From Troy to Vietnam. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verweij M., Thompson M. (eds) (2006). Clumsy Solutions for A Complex World. Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 10.1057/9780230624887 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viehrig K., Siegmund A., Funke J., Wüstenberg S., Greiff S. (2017). “The heidelberg inventory of geographic system competency model,” in Competence Assessment in Education. Research, Models and Instruments , eds Leutner D., Fleischer J., Grünkorn J., Klieme E. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 31–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• von Clausewitz C. (1832). Vom Kriege [On war]. Berlin: Dämmler. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wendt A. N. (2017). The empirical potential of live streaming beyond cognitive psychology. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 3 1–9. 10.11588/jddm.2017.1.33724 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiliam D., Black P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? Br. Educ. Res. J. 22 537–548. 10.1080/0141192960220502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum (2015). New Vsion for Education Unlocking the Potential of Technology. Geneva: World Economic Forum. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum (2016). Global Risks 2016: Insight Report , 11th Edn Geneva: World Economic Forum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüstenberg S., Greiff S., Funke J. (2012). Complex problem solving — more than reasoning? Intelligence 40 1–14. 10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüstenberg S., Greiff S., Vainikainen M.-P., Murphy K. (2016). Individual differences in students’ complex problem solving skills: how they evolve and what they imply. J. Educ. Psychol. 108 1028–1044. 10.1037/edu0000101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüstenberg S., Stadler M., Hautamäki J., Greiff S. (2014). The role of strategy knowledge for the application of strategies in complex problem solving tasks. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 19 127–146. 10.1007/s10758-014-9222-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is an Algorithm in Psychology?

Definition, Examples, and Uses

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

 James Lacy, MLS, is a fact-checker and researcher.

How Does an Algorithm Work?

Examples of algorithms.

• Reasons to Use Algorithms
• Potential Pitfalls

Algorithms vs. Heuristics

When solving a problem , choosing the right approach is often the key to arriving at the best solution. In psychology, one of these problem-solving approaches is known as an algorithm. While often thought of purely as a mathematical term, the same type of process can be followed in psychology to find the correct answer when solving a problem or making a decision.

An algorithm is a defined set of step-by-step procedures that provides the correct answer to a particular problem. By following the instructions correctly, you are guaranteed to arrive at the right answer.

At a Glance

Algorithms involve following specific steps in order to reach a solution to a problem. They can be a great tool when you need an accurate solution but tend to be more time-consuming than other methods.

This article discusses how algorithms are used as an approach to problem-solving. It also covers how psychologists compare this approach to other problem-solving methods.

An algorithm is often expressed in the form of a graph, where a square represents each step. Arrows then branch off from each step to point to possible directions that you may take to solve the problem.

In some cases, you must follow a particular set of steps to solve the problem. In other instances, you might be able to follow different paths that will all lead to the same solution.

Algorithms are essential step-by-step approaches to solving a problem. Rather than guessing or using trial-and-error, this approach is more likely to guarantee a specific solution. 

Using an algorithm can help you solve day-to-day problems you face, but it can also help mental health professionals find ways to help people cope with mental health problems.

For example, a therapist might use an algorithm to treat a person experiencing something like anxiety. Because the therapist knows that a particular approach is likely to be effective, they would recommend a series of specific, focused steps as part of their intervention.

There are many different examples of how algorithms can be used in daily life. Some common ones include:

• A recipe for cooking a particular dish
• The method a search engine uses to find information on the internet
• Instructions for how to assemble a bicycle
• Instructions for how to solve a Rubik's cube
• A process to determine what type of treatment is most appropriate for certain types of mental health conditions

Doctors and mental health professionals often use algorithms to diagnose mental disorders . For example, they may use a step-by-step approach when they evaluate people.

This might involve asking the individual about their symptoms and their medical history. The doctor may also conduct lab tests, physical exams, or psychological assessments.

Using this information, they then utilize the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM-5-TR) to make a diagnosis.

Reasons to Use Algorithms in Psychology

The upside of using an algorithm to solve a problem or make a decision is that yields the best possible answer every time. There are situations where using an algorithm can be the best approach:

When Accuracy Is Crucial

Algorithms can be particularly useful in situations when accuracy is critical. They are also a good choice when similar problems need to be frequently solved.

Computer programs can often be designed to speed up this process. Data then needs to be placed in the system so that the algorithm can be executed for the correct solution.

Artificial intelligence may also be a tool for making clinical assessments in healthcare situations.

When Each Decision Needs to Follow the Same Process

Such step-by-step approaches can be useful in situations where each decision must be made following the same process. Because the process follows a prescribed procedure, you can be sure that you will reach the correct answer each time.

Potential Pitfalls When Using Algorithms

The downside of using an algorithm to solve the problem is that this process tends to be very time-consuming.

So if you face a situation where a decision must be made very quickly, you might be better off using a different problem-solving strategy.

For example, an emergency room doctor making a decision about how to treat a patient could use an algorithm approach. However, this would be very time-consuming and treatment needs to be implemented quickly.

In this instance, the doctor would instead rely on their expertise and past experiences to very quickly choose what they feel is the right treatment approach.

Algorithms can sometimes be very complex and may only apply to specific situations. This can limit their use and make them less generalizable when working with larger populations.

Algorithms can be a great problem-solving choice when the answer needs to be 100% accurate or when each decision needs to follow the same process. A different approach might be needed if speed is the primary concern.

In psychology, algorithms are frequently contrasted with heuristics . Both can be useful when problem-solving, but it is important to understand the differences between them.

What Is a Heuristic?

A heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows people to quickly make judgments and solve problems.

These mental shortcuts are typically informed by our past experiences and allow us to act quickly. However, heuristics are really more of a rule-of-thumb; they don't always guarantee a correct solution.

So how do you determine when to use a heuristic and when to use an algorithm? When problem-solving, deciding which method to use depends on the need for either accuracy or speed.

When to Use an Algorithm

If complete accuracy is required, it is best to use an algorithm. By using an algorithm, accuracy is increased and potential mistakes are minimized.

If you are working in a situation where you absolutely need the correct or best possible answer, your best bet is to use an algorithm. When you are solving problems for your math homework, you don't want to risk your grade on a guess.

By following an algorithm, you can ensure that you will arrive at the correct answer to each problem.

When to Use a Heuristic

On the other hand, if time is an issue, then it may be best to use a heuristic. Mistakes may occur, but this approach allows for speedy decisions when time is of the essence.

Heuristics are more commonly used in everyday situations, such as figuring out the best route to get from point A to point B. While you could use an algorithm to map out every possible route and determine which one would be the fastest, that would be a very time-consuming process. Instead, your best option would be to use a route that you know has worked well in the past.

Psychologists who study problem-solving have described two main processes people utilize to reach conclusions: algorithms and heuristics. Knowing which approach to use is important because these two methods can vary in terms of speed and accuracy.

While each situation is unique, you may want to use an algorithm when being accurate is the primary concern. But if time is of the essence, then an algorithm is likely not the best choice.

Lang JM, Ford JD, Fitzgerald MM. An algorithm for determining use of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy . Psychotherapy (Chic) . 2010;47(4):554-69. doi:10.1037/a0021184

Stein DJ, Shoptaw SJ, Vigo DV, et al. Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in the 21st century: paradigm shifts versus incremental integration .  World Psychiatry . 2022;21(3):393-414. doi:10.1002/wps.20998

Bobadilla-Suarez S, Love BC. Fast or frugal, but not both: decision heuristics under time pressure . J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn . 2018;44(1):24-33. doi:10.1037/xlm0000419

Giordano C, Brennan M, Mohamed B, Rashidi P, Modave F, Tighe P. Accessing artificial intelligence for clinical decision-making .  Front Digit Health . 2021;3:645232. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2021.645232

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Thinking and Intelligence

Solving Problems

Learning objectives.

• Describe problem solving strategies, including algorithms and heuristics

People face problems every day—usually, multiple problems throughout the day. Sometimes these problems are straightforward: To double a recipe for pizza dough, for example, all that is required is that each ingredient in the recipe be doubled. Sometimes, however, the problems we encounter are more complex. For example, say you have a work deadline, and you must mail a printed copy of a report to your supervisor by the end of the business day. The report is time-sensitive and must be sent overnight. You finished the report last night, but your printer will not work today. What should you do? First, you need to identify the problem and then apply a strategy for solving the problem.

Problem-Solving Strategies

When you are presented with a problem—whether it is a complex mathematical problem or a broken printer, how do you solve it? Before finding a solution to the problem, the problem must first be clearly identified. After that, one of many problem solving strategies can be applied, hopefully resulting in a solution.

A problem-solving strategy is a plan of action used to find a solution. Different strategies have different action plans associated with them. For example, a well-known strategy is trial and error . The old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” describes trial and error. In terms of your broken printer, you could try checking the ink levels, and if that doesn’t work, you could check to make sure the paper tray isn’t jammed. Or maybe the printer isn’t actually connected to your laptop. When using trial and error, you would continue to try different solutions until you solved your problem. Although trial and error is not typically one of the most time-efficient strategies, it is a commonly used one.

Another type of strategy is an algorithm. An algorithm is a problem-solving formula that provides you with step-by-step instructions used to achieve a desired outcome (Kahneman, 2011). You can think of an algorithm as a recipe with highly detailed instructions that produce the same result every time they are performed. Algorithms are used frequently in our everyday lives, especially in computer science. When you run a search on the Internet, search engines like Google use algorithms to decide which entries will appear first in your list of results. Facebook also uses algorithms to decide which posts to display on your newsfeed. Can you identify other situations in which algorithms are used?

A heuristic is another type of problem solving strategy. While an algorithm must be followed exactly to produce a correct result, a heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. A “rule of thumb” is an example of a heuristic. Such a rule saves the person time and energy when making a decision, but despite its time-saving characteristics, it is not always the best method for making a rational decision. Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, but the impulse to use a heuristic occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):

• When one is faced with too much information
• When the time to make a decision is limited
• When the decision to be made is unimportant
• When there is access to very little information to use in making the decision
• When an appropriate heuristic happens to come to mind in the same moment

Working backwards is a useful heuristic in which you begin solving the problem by focusing on the end result. Consider this example: You live in Washington, D.C. and have been invited to a wedding at 4 PM on Saturday in Philadelphia. Knowing that Interstate 95 tends to back up any day of the week, you need to plan your route and time your departure accordingly. If you want to be at the wedding service by 3:30 PM, and it takes 2.5 hours to get to Philadelphia without traffic, what time should you leave your house? You use the working backwards heuristic to plan the events of your day on a regular basis, probably without even thinking about it.

What problem-solving method could you use to solve Einstein’s famous riddle?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=1rDVz_Fb6HQ%3Flist%3DPLUmyCeox8XCwB8FrEfDQtQZmCc2qYMS5a

You can view the transcript for “Can you solve “Einstein’s Riddle”? – Dan Van der Vieren” here (opens in new window) .

Another useful heuristic is the practice of accomplishing a large goal or task by breaking it into a series of smaller steps. Students often use this common method to complete a large research project or long essay for school. For example, students typically brainstorm, develop a thesis or main topic, research the chosen topic, organize their information into an outline, write a rough draft, revise and edit the rough draft, develop a final draft, organize the references list, and proofread their work before turning in the project. The large task becomes less overwhelming when it is broken down into a series of small steps.

Everyday Connections: Solving Puzzles

Problem-solving abilities can improve with practice. Many people challenge themselves every day with puzzles and other mental exercises to sharpen their problem-solving skills. Sudoku puzzles appear daily in most newspapers. Typically, a sudoku puzzle is a 9×9 grid. The simple sudoku below (Figure 1) is a 4×4 grid. To solve the puzzle, fill in the empty boxes with a single digit: 1, 2, 3, or 4. Here are the rules: The numbers must total 10 in each bolded box, each row, and each column; however, each digit can only appear once in a bolded box, row, and column. Time yourself as you solve this puzzle and compare your time with a classmate.

Here is another popular type of puzzle that challenges your spatial reasoning skills. Connect all nine dots with four connecting straight lines without lifting your pencil from the paper:

Take a look at the “Puzzling Scales” logic puzzle below (Figure 3). Sam Loyd, a well-known puzzle master, created and refined countless puzzles throughout his lifetime (Cyclopedia of Puzzles, n.d.).

Were you able to determine how many marbles are needed to balance the scales in the Puzzling Scales? You need nine. Were you able to solve the other problems above? Here are the answers:

CC licensed content, Original

• Modification and adaptation. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

CC licensed content, Shared previously

• Problem-Solving. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/7-3-problem-solving . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

All rights reserved content

• Can you solve Einsteinu2019s Riddle? . Authored by : Dan Van der Vieren. Provided by : Ted-Ed. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rDVz_Fb6HQ&index=3&list=PLUmyCeox8XCwB8FrEfDQtQZmCc2qYMS5a . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

method for solving problems

problem-solving strategy in which multiple solutions are attempted until the correct one is found

problem-solving strategy characterized by a specific set of instructions

mental shortcut that saves time when solving a problem

heuristic in which you begin to solve a problem by focusing on the end result

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Meet Our Team
• Discover The LSA Difference
• Coaching Process
• Core Values
• What is Executive Functioning?
• Understanding the EF Ripple Effect
• For Daily Life
• ND-Friendly Tools
• Executive Functioning Assessment
• Executive Functioning Meal Plan
• Executive Functioning 101 Resource Hub
• Executive Functioning IEP Goal Resource Hub
• How To Make Stuff More EF Friendly

Teaching the IDEAL Problem-Solving Method to Diverse Learners

Written by:

  Amy Sippl

Filed under: EF 101 Series , Executive Functioning , Problem Solving

Published:  January 21, 2021

Last Reviewed: April 10, 2023

READING TIME:  ~ minutes

We may assume that teens and young adults come equipped with a strong sense of approaching difficult or uncertain situations. For many of the individuals we work with, problem-solving needs to be practiced and developed in the same way as academic and social skills. The IDEAL Problem Solving Method is one option to teach problem-solving to diverse learners.

What is problem-solving?

Problem-solving is the capacity to identify and describe a problem and generate solutions to fix it .

Problem-solving involves other executive functioning behaviors as well, including attentional control, planning , and task initiation . Individuals might use time management , emotional control, or organization skills to solve problems as well. Over time, learners can observe their behavior, use working memory , and self-monitor behaviors to influence how we solve future issues.

Why are problem-solving strategies important?

Not all diverse learners develop adequate problem-solving. Learners with a history of behavioral and learning challenges may not always use good problem-solving skills to manage stressful situations. Some students use challenging behaviors like talking back, arguing, property destruction, and aggression when presented with challenging tasks. Others might shut down, check out, or struggle to follow directions when encountering new or unknown situations.

Without a step-by-step model for problem-solving , including identifying a problem and choosing a replacement behavior to solve it, many of our children and students use challenging behaviors instead. The IDEAL Problem-Solving Method is one option to teach diverse learners to better approach difficult situations.

IDEAL Problem-Solving Method

In 1984, Bransford and Stein published one of the most popular and well-regarded problem-solving methods. It’s used both in industry and in education to help various learners establish a problem, generate solutions, and move forward quickly and efficiently. By teaching your learner each step of the IDEAL model, you can provide them with a set of steps to approach a problem with confidence.

The IDEAL Problem-Solving Method includes:

I – Identify the problem.

There’s no real way to create a solution to a problem unless you first know the scope of the problem. Encourage your learner to identify the issue in their own words. Outline the facts and the unknowns. Foster an environment where your learner is praised and supported for identifying and taking on new problems.

Examples of identifying problems:

• “I have a math quiz next week and don’t know how to do the problems.”
• “I can’t access my distance learning course website.”
• “The trash needs to be taken out, and I can’t find any trash bags.”

D – Define an outcome

The second step in the IDEAL problem-solving process is to define an outcome or goal for problem-solving. Multiple people can agree that a problem exists but have very different ideas on goals or outcomes. By deciding on an outlined objective first, it can speed up the process of identifying solutions.

Defining outcomes and goals may be a difficult step for some diverse learners. The results don’t need to be complicated, but just clear for everyone involved.

Examples of defining outcomes:

• “I want to do well on my math quiz.”
• “I get access to the course website.”
• “The trash gets taken out before the trash pickup day tomorrow.”

E – Explore possible strategies.

Once you have an outcome, encourage your learner to brainstorm possible strategies. All possible solutions should be on the table during this stage, so encourage learners to make lists, use sticky notes, or voice memos to record any ideas. If your learner struggles with creative idea generation, help them develop a plan of resources for who they might consult in the exploration stage.

Examples of possible strategies to solve a problem:

• “I review the textbook; I ask for math help from a friend; I look up the problems online; I email my teacher.”
• “I email my teacher for the course access; I ask for help from a classmate; I try to reset my password.”
• “I use something else for a trash bag; I place an online order for bags; I take the trash out without a bag; I ask a neighbor for a bag; I go shopping for trash bags.”

A – Anticipate Outcomes & Act

Once we generate a list of strategies, the next step in the IDEAL problem-solving model recommends that you review the potential steps and decide which one is the best option to use first. Helping learners to evaluate the pros and cons of action steps can take practice. Ask questions like, “What might happen if you take this step?” or “Does that step make you feel good about moving forward or uncertain?”

After evaluating the outcomes, the next step is to take action. Encourage your learner to move forward even if they may not know the full result of taking action. Support doing something, even if it might not be the same strategy, you might take to solve a problem or the ‘best’ solution.

L – Look and Learn

The final step in the IDEAL problem-solving model is to look and learn from an attempt to solve a problem. Many parents and teachers forget this critical step in helping diverse learners to stop and reflect when problem-solving goes well and doesn’t go well. Helping our students and children learn from experience can make problem-solving more efficient and effective in the future. Ask questions like “How did that go?” and “What do you think you’ll do differently next time?”

Examples of Look and Learn statements:

• “I didn’t learn the problems from looking at the textbook, but it did help to call a friend. I’ll start there next time.”
• “When I didn’t have access to the course website, resetting my password worked.”
• “I ran out of trash bags because I forgot to put them on the shopping list . I’ll buy an extra box of trash bags to have them on hand, so I don’t run out next time.”

Practice Problem-Solving

For ideas on common problems, download our deck of problem-solving practice cards. Set aside time to practice, role-play, give feedback, and rehearse again if needed.

How to teach the IDEAL problem-solving method

Top businesses and corporations spend thousands of dollars on training teams to implement problem-solving strategies like the IDEAL method. Employees practice and role-play common problems in the workplace . Coaches give supportive feedback until everyone feels confident in each of the steps.

Teachers and parents can use the same process to help students and children use the IDEAL problem-solving method. Set aside time to review common problems or social scenarios your learner might encounter. Practice using the IDEAL method when emotions and tensions aren’t running as high. Allow your learner to ask questions, work through problems, and receive feedback and praise for creating logical action plans.

Further Reading

• Bransford, J., and Stein, B., “The Ideal Problem Solver” (1993). Centers for Teaching and Technology – Book Library . 46. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ct2-library/4
• Executive Functioning 101: Planning Skills
• Executive Functioning: Task Initiation
• Executive Functioning Skills by Age: What to Expect
• Kern, L., George, M. P., & Weist, M. D. (2016). Supporting students with emotional and behavioral problems. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

About The Author

Amy Sippl is a Minnesota-based Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) and freelance content developer specializing in helping individuals with autism and their families reach their best possible outcomes. Amy earned her Master's Degree in Applied Behavior Analysis from St. Cloud State University and also holds undergraduate degrees in Psychology and Family Social Science from University of Minnesota – Twin Cities. Amy has worked with children with autism and related developmental disabilities for over a decade in both in-home and clinical settings. Her content focuses on parents, educators, and professionals in the world of autism—emphasizing simple strategies and tips to maximize success. To see more of her work visit amysippl.com .

Related Posts

10-minute tips to improve self-monitoring skills, how to make studying executive function friendly, 25 board games that promote executive functioning skills, how to make riding public transit executive function friendly, how to make school more executive function friendly, 5 executive functioning strategies to create more free time.

Life Skills Advocate is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. Some of the links in this post may be Amazon.com affiliate links, which means if you make a purchase, Life Skills Advocate will earn a commission. However, we only promote products we actually use or those which have been vetted by the greater community of families and professionals who support individuals with diverse learning needs.

Session expired

Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.

More From Forbes

Stumped five ways to hone your problem-solving skills.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Respect the worth of other people's insights

Problems continuously arise in organizational life, making problem-solving an essential skill for leaders. Leaders who are good at tackling conundrums are likely to be more effective at overcoming obstacles and guiding their teams to achieve their goals. So, what’s the secret to better problem-solving skills?

1. Understand the root cause of the problem

“Too often, people fail because they haven’t correctly defined what the problem is,” says David Ross, an international strategist, founder of consultancy Phoenix Strategic Management and author of Confronting the Storm: Regenerating Leadership and Hope in the Age of Uncertainty .

Ross explains that as teams grapple with “wicked” problems – those where there can be several root causes for why a problem exists – there can often be disagreement on the initial assumptions made. As a result, their chances of successfully solving the problem are low.

“Before commencing the process of solving the problem, it is worthwhile identifying who your key stakeholders are and talking to them about the issue,” Ross recommends. “Who could be affected by the issue? What is the problem – and why? How are people affected?”

He argues that if leaders treat people with dignity, respecting the worth of their insights, they are more likely to successfully solve problems.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, 2. unfocus the mind.

“To solve problems, we need to commit to making time to face a problem in its full complexity, which also requires that we take back control of our thinking,” says Chris Griffiths, an expert on creativity and innovative thinking skills, founder and CEO of software provider OpenGenius, and co-author of The Focus Fix: Finding Clarity, Creativity and Resilience in an Overwhelming World .

To do this, it’s necessary to harness the power of the unfocused mind, according to Griffiths. “It might sound oxymoronic, but just like our devices, our brain needs time to recharge,” he says. “ A plethora of research has shown that daydreaming allows us to make creative connections and see abstract solutions that are not obvious when we’re engaged in direct work.”

To make use of the unfocused mind in problem solving, you must begin by getting to know the problem from all angles. “At this stage, don’t worry about actually solving the problem,” says Griffiths. “You’re simply giving your subconscious mind the information it needs to get creative with when you zone out. From here, pick a monotonous or rhythmic activity that will help you to activate the daydreaming state – that might be a walk, some doodling, or even some chores.”

Do this regularly, argues Griffiths, and you’ll soon find that flashes of inspiration and novel solutions naturally present themselves while you’re ostensibly thinking of other things. He says: “By allowing you to access the fullest creative potential of your own brain, daydreaming acts as a skeleton key for a wide range of problems.”

3. Be comfortable making judgment calls

“Admitting to not knowing the future takes courage,” says Professor Stephen Wyatt, founder and lead consultant at consultancy Corporate Rebirth and author of Antidote to the Crisis of Leadership: Opportunity in Complexity . “Leaders are worried our teams won’t respect us and our boards will lose faith in us, but what doesn’t work is drawing up plans and forecasts and holding yourself or others rigidly to them.”

Wyatt advises leaders to heighten their situational awareness – to look broadly, integrate more perspectives and be able to connect the dots. “We need to be comfortable in making judgment calls as the future is unknown,” he says. “There is no data on it. But equally, very few initiatives cannot be adjusted, refined or reviewed while in motion.”

Leaders need to stay vigilant, according to Wyatt, create the capacity of the enterprise to adapt and maintain the support of stakeholders. “The concept of the infallible leader needs to be updated,” he concludes.

4. Be prepared to fail and learn

“Organisations, and arguably society more widely, are obsessed with problems and the notion of problems,” says Steve Hearsum, founder of organizational change consultancy Edge + Stretch and author of No Silver Bullet: Bursting the Bubble of the Organisational Quick Fix .

Hearsum argues that this tendency is complicated by the myth of fixability, namely the idea that all problems, however complex, have a solution. “Our need for certainty, to minimize and dampen the anxiety of ‘not knowing,’ leads us to oversimplify and ignore or filter out anything that challenges the idea that there is a solution,” he says.

Leaders need to shift their mindset to cultivate their comfort with not knowing and couple that with being OK with being wrong, sometimes, notes Hearsum. He adds: “That means developing reflexivity to understand your own beliefs and judgments, and what influences these, asking questions and experimenting.”

5. Unleash the power of empathy

Leaders must be able to communicate problems in order to find solutions to them. But they should avoid bombarding their teams with complex, technical details since these can overwhelm their people’s cognitive load, says Dr Jessica Barker MBE , author of Hacked: The Secrets Behind Cyber Attacks .

Instead, she recommends that leaders frame their messages in ways that cut through jargon and ensure that their advice is relevant, accessible and actionable. “An essential leadership skill for this is empathy,” Barker explains. “When you’re trying to build a positive culture, it is crucial to understand why people are not practicing the behaviors you want rather than trying to force that behavioral change with fear, uncertainty and doubt.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.