Working memory and strategies in reasoning
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology
Alderson-Day, B., & Fernyhough, C. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000021 · Cited by 808 · see citing works
Verbal interference paradigms: a systematic review investigating the role of language in cognition
Nedergaard, J. S. K., Wallentin, M., & Lupyan, G. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02144-7 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gilhooly, K. J.
- Corresponding author
- K. J. Gilhooly
- Venue
- Methods of Thought
- Publisher
- Psychology Press
- 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