Cited by 6Cognitive Abilities and TestingAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Working memory and strategies in reasoning

K. J. Gilhooly·2004·Methods of Thought

Abstract

The study of thinking and problem solving is organised into fairly broad areas such as reasoning, planning, and decision making, and within each area into families of tasks such as syllogistic reasoning, decision making under uncertainty, and planning in move problems. Even within specific tasks it is clear that individuals vary in how they tackle them, and that individuals vary over time. Virtually every task of interest to the study of thinking and problem solving, I suggest, is open to a variety of approaches, or strategies, for solution. For example, given the task of finding the sum of the digits 1 to 100, an obvious approach is to begin adding the numbers in sequence. However, a better approach is possible if the person notices that the digits 1 to 100 form 50 pairs each of which add to 101 i.e., (1 + 100), (2 + 99), (3 + 98), (4 + 97) and so on. This second ‘grouping and multiplying’ procedure readily gives the correct answer (5050). It is reported that the famous mathematician Gauss used the second procedure when given the above task as a young child in school (Hall, 1970) enabling him to produce the correct answer very quickly while his classmates struggled with the ‘simple summing’ procedure. Intuitively, it would seem that the ‘grouping and multiplying’ method is better because it produces the answer with less load on memory. This chapter will be discussing work which relates to the link between strategies in reasoning tasks and memory load and, in particular, working memory load.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9780203503881-9

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilhooly, K. J.
Corresponding author
K. J. Gilhooly
Venue
Methods of Thought
Published
2004-06-02
Pages
64-87
OpenAlex
W4244963204
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.02
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychology Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
working memory, reasoning strategies, memory load, problem solving, syllogistic reasoning, decision making under uncertainty, planning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review