FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W63751033> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W63751033 abstract "Motivation in Insight versus Incremental Problem Solving Mareike Wieth (wiethmar@msu.edu) Bruce D. Burns (burnsbr@msu.edu) Department of Psychology; Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1117 USA Abstract Previous studies have shown a correlation between initial motivation and subsequent performance (e.g. Vollmeyer, Rheinberg, & Burns, 1998). However, it it is possible that this relationship is due to a third factor such as general ability. To address this issue, our participants completed insight as well as incremental problems. These two types of problems have been shown to differ both theoretically and empirically due to differential underlying processes (e.g., Metcalfe & Wiebe, 1987). Results showed that motivation (in particular, interest) correlated with incremental problem solving but not with insight problem solving. The results were replicated with two different sets of problems solved by different groups of participants. Motivation was measured before solving the problems, so the difference between these two types of problems provides us with evidence that motivation is causal in producing better problem solving performance. Further, it suggests that when processes differ, motivational effect on performance will differ. Introduction It has been difficult to demonstrate conclusively an effect of motivation on problem solving. This is partly because the difficulty of manipulating motivation reliably has forced research designed to examine this issue to rely on correlational studies. Studies such as Vollmeyer and Rheinberg (1998) and Vollmeyer, Rheinberg, & Burns, (1998) have shown a correlation between initial motivation and performance in a complex problem solving task. Although motivation is predictive of performance in these studies, it could still be argued that the correlation is due to a third factor. It is plausible that people with higher general ability at problem solving may not only be better at this task, but also be more highly motivated when faced with such a task. So motivation may not be a causal factor. In order to learn more from correlational studies of motivation, a slightly different methodology is required. If we give problem solvers qualitatively different problems to solve and find that motivation has a different relationship to performance on these different types of problems, then we would have good evidence that it is not a general ability factor that accounts for any relationship found between motivation and problem solving performance. Two types of problems that can have a similar form, but have been shown to be qualitatively different, are insight and incremental problems (e.g., Metcalfe & Wiebe, 1987). This makes them good candidates for a methodology looking for qualitatively different motivational influences on problem solving. So in this study we compared the effect of motivation on insight and incremental problem solving. Motivation and Problem Solving It has long been acknowledged that motivation is important, for example, Simon (1967) emphasized the importance of motivational and emotional influence on cognition. However, for the most part motivation and its relationship to cognitive processes has been largely ignored by cognitive scientists. Investigating this influence has been seen as unnecessary because differences in motivation have been treated as background noise that that can be ignored when investigating specific cognitive processes. Even though the operation of Anderson's (1993) ACT-R depends crucially on the goal of the actor and how likely they think an action will be successful, he specifically rules out having to consider the more general goals of the actor. Although Anderson acknowledges the importance of wider goals, he takes the stance that once the actor is committed to doing something in a situation, the actor's more general motivation is irrelevant. Whether it is sustainable to routinely ignore motivation and emotion when studying cognition is something that has come into question. For example, Kuhl and Kazen (1999) have shown that one of the most well-known of cognitive phenomena − the Stroop effect − can be wiped out by manipulating emotion. Recent research has also started to address the relationship between motivation and cognition (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Lord & Levy, 1994; Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1990; Vollmeyer & Rheinberg, 1998; Vollmeyer, et al., 1998). With respect to problem solving, Vollmeyer and Rheinberg (1998) fitted their cognitive- motivational process model to a complex problem solving task called Biology-lab. The cognitive-motivational process model proposes an interaction between motivation and cognition such that initial motivation affects the motivational state during learning which in turn influences strategy use and acquisition of knowledge. In Biology-lab participants have to learn how to manipulate a complex learning environment by controlling several inputs and output variables. In particular, Vollmeyer & Rheinberg have shown that participants with higher motivation were" @default.
• W63751033 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W63751033 creator A5041280303 @default.
• W63751033 creator A5046526984 @default.
• W63751033 date "2000-01-01" @default.
• W63751033 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W63751033 title "Motivation in Insight versus Incremental Problem Solving" @default.
• W63751033 cites W2064482980 @default.
• W63751033 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W63751033 type Work @default.
• W63751033 sameAs 63751033 @default.
• W63751033 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W63751033 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W63751033 hasAuthorship W63751033A5041280303 @default.
• W63751033 hasAuthorship W63751033A5046526984 @default.
• W63751033 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W63751033 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W63751033 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W63751033 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W63751033 hasConcept C2780451532 @default.
• W63751033 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W63751033 hasConceptScore W63751033C15744967 @default.
• W63751033 hasConceptScore W63751033C162324750 @default.
• W63751033 hasConceptScore W63751033C180747234 @default.
• W63751033 hasConceptScore W63751033C187736073 @default.
• W63751033 hasConceptScore W63751033C2780451532 @default.
• W63751033 hasConceptScore W63751033C77805123 @default.
• W63751033 hasIssue "22" @default.
• W63751033 hasLocation W637510331 @default.
• W63751033 hasOpenAccess W63751033 @default.
• W63751033 hasPrimaryLocation W637510331 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W13546051 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W1508208771 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W1577674167 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W1930841127 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W1966274167 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W1987554188 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2010045127 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2025182192 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2060860789 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2132871173 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2186986109 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2330859340 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2573626879 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2584165569 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2757207428 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2769678792 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W2796126156 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W3020500301 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W619935334 @default.
• W63751033 hasRelatedWork W312976880 @default.
• W63751033 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W63751033 isParatext "false" @default.
• W63751033 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W63751033 magId "63751033" @default.
• W63751033 workType "article" @default.