问题解决中的加法倾向性—来自汉字转换任务的证据

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.04.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以往研究发现，人们解决问题时更倾向于使用加法策略而忽略有利的减法策略，但加法倾向性的影响因素仍不清楚。本研究基于汉字转换任务探讨该问题。实验1结果发现，使用单一策略(单独增加或减少一笔)让假汉字变真字时，减法解答频次高于加法，表明减法策略更简单；实验2结果显示，自由策略(可自由增加或减少)中加法答案频次高于减法，且高知觉整体性(笔画同色)条件下相较于低知觉整体性(笔画异色)加法答案比例更高。本研究不仅验证了加法倾向性的存在，还揭示了一个新的发现：部件间的知觉整体性增强了加法倾向性。

关键词: 问题解决, 加法倾向性, 知觉整体性, 汉字

Abstract:

Previous studies have found that people are more inclined to use additive strategies and ignore favorable subtractive strategies when solving problems, however, what factors influence this preference for addition remains unclear. The present study explored this issue by using a Chinese character conversion task. Experiment 1 found that when using a single strategy (either adding or subtracting one stroke alone) to convert a false character into a valid one, the frequency of subtractive answers was higher than that of additive ones, which suggests that subtraction is easier than addition. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the frequency of additive answers was higher than subtractive ones under a free-choice strategy condition where participants could choose to add or subtract one stroke. Additionally, the high perceptual integration condition caused higher proportion of additive answers compared to the low perceptual integration condition. This study validates the additive tendency and reveals a new finding, that is, the intercomponent perceptual integration enhances the additive tendency.

Key words: problem solving, additive tendency, perception integration, Chinese character

林正希, 张忠炉. 问题解决中的加法倾向性—来自汉字转换任务的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(4): 457-462.

Zhengxi LIN, Zhonglu ZHANG. Additive Tendencies in Problem Solving: Evidence from The Chinese Character Conversion Task[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(4): 457-462.

图/表 3

参考文献 0

	黄福荣, 和美, 罗劲. 组块破解形态顿悟的脑认知机理. 科学通报, 2017, 62 (31): 3594- 3604.
	张忠炉, 邢强, 雷怡, 李红. 组块紧密性导致组块破解困难: 部件类型还是交错关系?. 心理科学, 2019, 42 (1): 2- 7.
	Adams, G. S., Converse, B. A., Hales, A. H., & Klotz, L. E. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature, 2021, 592 (7853): 258- 261. DOI
	Bartley, J. E., Boeving, E. R., Riedel, M. C., Bottenhorn, K. L., Salo, T., Eickhoff, S. B., … Laird, A. R. Meta-analytic evidence for a core problem solving network across multiple representational domains. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2018, 92, 318- 337.
	Bohnemeyer, J. (2020). Linguistic relativity. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics (pp. 1–33). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
	Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., & Pattershall, J. The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, 97 (5): 765- 775. DOI
	Fischer, M. H., Winter, B., Felisatti, A., Myachykov, A., Mende, M. A., & Shaki, S. More instructions make fewer subtractions. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021, 12, 720616. DOI
	Juvrud, J., Myers, L., & Nyström, P. People overlook subtractive changes differently depending on age, culture, and task. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14 (1): 1086. DOI
	Kahneman, D. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 2003, 58 (9): 697- 720. DOI
	Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1991, 5 (1): 193- 206. DOI
	Klotz, L. (2021). Subtract: The untapped science of less. New York: Flatiron Books.
	Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1534–1555.
	Luo, J., Niki, K., & Knoblich, G. Perceptual contributions to problem solving: Chunk decomposition of Chinese characters. Brain Research Bulletin, 2006, 70 (4–6): 430- 443. DOI
	Meyvis, T., & Yoon, H. Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving. Nature, 2021, 592 (7853): 189- 190. DOI
	Neldner, K., Redshaw, J., Murphy, S., Tomaselli, K., Davis, J., Dixson, B., & Nielsen, M. Creation across culture: Children’s tool innovation is influenced by cultural and developmental factors. Developmental Psychology, 2019, 55 (4): 877- 889. DOI
	Öllinger, M., Jones, G., & Knoblich, G. Insight and search in Katona’s five-square problem. Experimental Psychology, 2014, 61 (4): 263- 272. DOI
	Shen, W. B., Tong, Y., Li, F., Yuan, Y., Hommel, B., Liu, C., & Luo, J. Tracking the neurodynamics of insight: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Biological Psychology, 2018, 138, 189- 198. DOI
	Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 54 (2): 323- 338. DOI
	Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & von der Heydt, R. A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 2012, 138 (6): 1172- 1217. DOI
	Wu, X. F., He, M., Zhou, Y. L., Xiao, J., & Luo, J. Decomposing a chunk into its elements and reorganizing them as a new chunk: The two different sub-processes underlying insightful chunk decomposition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, 8, 2001. DOI
	Zhang, Z. L., Luo, Y., Wang, C. L., Warren, C. M., Xia, Q., Xing, Q. H., … Li, H. Identification and transformation difficulty in problem solving: Electrophysiological evidence from chunk decomposition. Biological Psychology, 2019, 143, 10- 21. DOI
	Zhang, Z. L., Yang, K., Warren, C. M., Zhao, G., Li, P., Lei, Y., & Li, H. The influence of element type and crossed relation on the difficulty of chunk decomposition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6, 1025.

	加法	减法	Mann-Whitney检验统计量	p
目标字	281.53	294.55	551.00	0.741

	加法	减法	Mann-Whitney检验统计量	p
目标字	281.53	294.55	551.00	0.741

[1]	巫金根, 郭梅华, 于棋, 王冰然, 程小云, 闫国利. 习得年龄和累计频率对儿童汉字识别的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 297-304.
[2]	顾俊娟, 高志华, 马绍扬. 嵌套词汉字位置加工的亚词边界效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 1-7.
[3]	朱欢, 谢肖蔚, 戴喆如, 唐小雅, 臧健, 吴娇, 臧学莲. 基于汉字搜索的情景线索效应研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 577-584.
[4]	孔令跃, 张豹. 汉字亚词汇部件语音加工的P200效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(3): 304-310.
[5]	顾俊娟, 高志华, 屈青青. 汉字位置加工的词边界效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 193-199.
[6]	王硕阳, 林崇德, 孙汉银. 创造性问题解决中的联想能力及其作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 8-16.
[7]	马利军, 韩镇洋. 整字-部件关系对等级汉字识别的影响研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 756-764.
[8]	李昱霖, 杨帆, 王琳, 隋雪. 汉字位置信息加工的脑电变化进程[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 296-303.
[9]	张锋. 汉字识别的反启动效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(4): 458-463.
[10]	柳笛. 不同亚型数学学习困难儿童应用题问题表征过程的研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(4): 497-504.
[11]	张丽, 李甦. 3-5岁儿童汉字方向敏感性的发展[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(1): 74-80.
[12]	吕凯. 顿悟问题解决中抑制功能的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(2): 219-227.
[13]	陈勃, 邓稳根, 李慧琦. 等级反应题组模型在《基于实际操作的老年人日常问题解决能力测验》中的应用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(6): 832-838.
[14]	罗琳, 翟洪昌. 记忆汉字和英语单词的差异脑区研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2013, 11(2): 211-216.
[15]	王晶；仲宁宁；陈英和. 问题结构因素对伦敦塔问题解决的影响[J]. , 2013, 11(1): 24-29.