Understanding Psychology (10th Ed)

 INSIGHT: SUDDEN AWARENESS 
Some approaches to generating possible solutions focus less 
on step-by-step heuristics than on the sudden bursts of 
comprehension that one may experience during efforts to 
solve a problem. In a classic study the German psychologist 
Wolfgang Köhler examined learning and problem-solving 
processes in chimpanzees (Köhler, 1927). In his studies, 
Köhler exposed chimps to challenging situations in which 
the elements of the solution were all present; all the chimps 
needed to do was put them together. 
In one of Köhler’s studies, chimps were kept in a 
cage in which boxes and sticks were strewn about, and a 
bunch of tantalizing bananas hung from the ceiling, out 
of reach. Initially, the chimps made trial-and-error 
attempts to get to the bananas: They would throw the 
sticks at the bananas, jump from one of the boxes, or leap 
wildly from the ground. Frequently, they would seem to 
give up in frustration, leaving the bananas dangling 
feL82795_ch08_240-275.indd Page 256 9/6/10 3:46 PM user-f464
feL82795_ch08_240-275.indd Page 256 9/6/10 3:46 PM user-f464

---

 
Module 24 
Problem Solving 
257
temptingly overhead. But then, in what seemed like a sudden revelation, they would 
stop whatever they were doing and stand on a box to reach the bananas with a stick 
(Figure 7). Köhler called the cognitive process underlying the chimps’ new behavior 
 insight 
,
a sudden awareness of the relationships among various elements that had 
previously appeared to be unrelated.
 
Although Köhler emphasized the apparent suddenness of insightful solutions, 
subsequent research has shown that prior experience and trial-and-error practice in 
problem solving must precede “insight.” Consequently, the chimps’ behavior may 
simply represent the chaining together of previously learned responses, no different 
from the way a pigeon learns, by trial and error, to peck a key (Epstein, 1996; Wind-
holz & Lamal, 2002).
Judgment: Evaluating Solutions
The fi nal stage in problem solving is judging the adequacy of a solution. Often this 
is a simple matter: If the solution is clear—as in the Tower of Hanoi problem—we 
will know immediately whether we have been successful (Varma, 2007). 
If the solution is less concrete or if there is no single correct solution, evaluating 
solutions becomes more diffi cult. In such instances, we must decide which alternative 
solution is best. Unfortunately, we often quite inaccurately estimate the quality of 
our own ideas. For instance, a team of drug researchers working for a particular 
company may consider their remedy for an illness to be superior to all others, over-
estimating the likelihood of their success and downplaying the approaches of com-
peting drug companies (Eizenberg & Zaslavsky, 2004). 
Theoretically, if we rely on appropriate heuristics and valid information to make 
decisions, we can make accurate choices among alternative solutions. However, as 
we see next, several kinds of obstacles to and biases in problem solving affect the 
quality of the decisions and judgments we make. (Also see Applying Psychology in the 
21 st Century .)