definition of problem solving research

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Problem Solving and Decision Making

Introduction.

• General Approaches to Problem Solving
• Representational Accounts
• Problem Space and Search
• Working Memory and Problem Solving
• Domain-Specific Problem Solving
• The Rational Approach
• Prospect Theory
• Dual-Process Theory
• Cognitive Heuristics and Biases

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
• Counterfactual Reasoning
• Critical Thinking
• Heuristics and Biases
• Protocol Analysis
• Psychology and Law

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Data Visualization
• Executive Functions in Childhood
• Remote Work
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Problem Solving and Decision Making by Emily G. Nielsen , John Paul Minda LAST REVIEWED: 26 June 2019 LAST MODIFIED: 26 June 2019 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0246

Problem solving and decision making are both examples of complex, higher-order thinking. Both involve the assessment of the environment, the involvement of working memory or short-term memory, reliance on long term memory, effects of knowledge, and the application of heuristics to complete a behavior. A problem can be defined as an impasse or gap between a current state and a desired goal state. Problem solving is the set of cognitive operations that a person engages in to change the current state, to go beyond the impasse, and achieve a desired outcome. Problem solving involves the mental representation of the problem state and the manipulation of this representation in order to move closer to the goal. Problems can vary in complexity, abstraction, and how well defined (or not) the initial state and the goal state are. Research has generally approached problem solving by examining the behaviors and cognitive processes involved, and some work has examined problem solving using computational processes as well. Decision making is the process of selecting and choosing one action or behavior out of several alternatives. Like problem solving, decision making involves the coordination of memories and executive resources. Research on decision making has paid particular attention to the cognitive biases that account for suboptimal decisions and decisions that deviate from rationality. The current bibliography first outlines some general resources on the psychology of problem solving and decision making before examining each of these topics in detail. Specifically, this review covers cognitive, neuroscientific, and computational approaches to problem solving, as well as decision making models and cognitive heuristics and biases.

General Overviews

Current research in the area of problem solving and decision making is published in both general and specialized scientific journals. Theoretical and scholarly work is often summarized and developed in full-length books and chapter. These may focus on the subfields of problem solving and decision making or the larger field of thinking and higher-order cognition.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Psychology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abnormal Psychology
• Academic Assessment
• Acculturation and Health
• Action Regulation Theory
• Action Research
• Addictive Behavior
• Adolescence
• Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
• Advanced Theory of Mind
• Affective Forecasting
• Affirmative Action
• Ageism at Work
• Allport, Gordon
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
• Animal Behavior
• Animal Learning
• Anxiety Disorders
• Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
• Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
• Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
• Attitudinal Ambivalence
• Attraction in Close Relationships
• Attribution Theory
• Authoritarian Personality
• Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
• Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
• Behavioral Economics
• Behavioral Genetics
• Belief Perseverance
• Bereavement and Grief
• Biological Psychology
• Birth Order
• Body Image in Men and Women
• Bystander Effect
• Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
• Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
• Clark, Mamie Phipps
• Clinical Neuropsychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
• Comparative Psychology
• Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
• Competency to Stand Trial
• Computational Psychology
• Conflict Management in the Workplace
• Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
• Consciousness
• Coping Processes
• Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
• Counseling Psychology
• Creativity at Work
• Cross-Cultural Psychology
• Cultural Psychology
• Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
• Data Science Methods for Psychology
• Data Sharing in Psychology
• Death and Dying
• Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
• Defensive Processes
• Depressive Disorders
• Development, Prenatal
• Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
• Developmental Psychology (Social)
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
• Discrimination
• Dissociative Disorders
• Drugs and Behavior
• Eating Disorders
• Ecological Psychology
• Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
• Effect Size
• Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
• Emerging Adulthood
• Emotional Intelligence
• Empathy and Altruism
• Employee Stress and Well-Being
• Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
• Ethics in Psychological Practice
• Event Perception
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Expansive Posture
• Experimental Existential Psychology
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Eysenck, Hans
• Factor Analysis
• Festinger, Leon
• Five-Factor Model of Personality
• Flynn Effect, The
• Forensic Psychology
• Forgiveness
• Friendships, Children's
• Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Game Theory and Psychology
• Geropsychology, Clinical
• Global Mental Health
• Habit Formation and Behavior Change
• Health Psychology
• Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
• Heider, Fritz
• History of Psychology
• Human Factors
• Humanistic Psychology
• Implicit Association Test (IAT)
• Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• Inferential Statistics in Psychology
• Insanity Defense, The
• Intelligence
• Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
• Intercultural Psychology
• Intergroup Conflict
• International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
• International Psychology
• Interviewing in Forensic Settings
• Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Introversion–Extraversion
• Item Response Theory
• Law, Psychology and
• Lazarus, Richard
• Learned Helplessness
• Learning Theory
• Learning versus Performance
• LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
• Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
• Life-Span Development
• Locus of Control
• Loneliness and Health
• Mathematical Psychology
• Meaning in Life
• Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
• Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Mediation Analysis
• Memories, Autobiographical
• Memories, Flashbulb
• Memories, Repressed and Recovered
• Memory, False
• Memory, Human
• Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
• Memory in Educational Settings
• Memory, Semantic
• Meta-Analysis
• Metacognition
• Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
• Microaggressions
• Military Psychology
• Mindfulness
• Mindfulness and Education
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• Money, Psychology of
• Moral Conviction
• Moral Development
• Moral Psychology
• Moral Reasoning
• Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
• Neuroscience of Associative Learning
• Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
• Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
• Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
• Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
• Occupational Health Psychology
• Olfaction, Human
• Operant Conditioning
• Optimism and Pessimism
• Organizational Justice
• Parenting Stress
• Parenting Styles
• Parents' Beliefs about Children
• Path Models
• Peace Psychology
• Perception, Person
• Performance Appraisal
• Personality and Health
• Personality Disorders
• Personality Psychology
• Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies: From Car...
• Phenomenological Psychology
• Placebo Effects in Psychology
• Play Behavior
• Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
• Positive Psychology
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• Prejudice and Stereotyping
• Pretrial Publicity
• Prisoner's Dilemma
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Procrastination
• Prosocial Behavior
• Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
• Psycholinguistics
• Psychological Literacy
• Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
• Psychology, Political
• Psychoneuroimmunology
• Psychophysics, Visual
• Psychotherapy
• Psychotic Disorders
• Publication Bias in Psychology
• Reasoning, Counterfactual
• Rehabilitation Psychology
• Relationships
• Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
• Religion, Psychology and
• Replication Initiatives in Psychology
• Research Methods
• Risk Taking
• Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
• Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
• Schizophrenic Disorders
• School Psychology
• School Psychology, Counseling Services in
• Self, Gender and
• Self, Psychology of the
• Self-Construal
• Self-Control
• Self-Deception
• Self-Determination Theory
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Esteem
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
• Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
• Sensation Seeking
• Sex and Gender
• Sexual Minority Parenting
• Sexual Orientation
• Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
• Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
• Single People
• Single-Case Experimental Designs
• Skinner, B.F.
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Small Groups
• Social Class and Social Status
• Social Cognition
• Social Neuroscience
• Social Support
• Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
• Somatoform Disorders
• Spatial Attention
• Sports Psychology
• Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
• Stereotype Threat
• Stereotypes
• Stress and Coping, Psychology of
• Student Success in College
• Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
• Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
• Teaching of Psychology
• Terror Management Theory
• Testing and Assessment
• The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
• The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
• The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
• The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
• Theory of Mind
• Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
• Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
• Time Perception
• Trait Perspective
• Trauma Psychology
• Twin Studies
• Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
• Unconscious Processes
• Video Games and Violent Content
• Virtues and Character Strengths
• Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
• Women, Psychology of
• Work Well-Being
• Workforce Training Evaluation
• Wundt, Wilhelm
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Complex Problem Solving: What It Is and What It Is Not

Dietrich dörner.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

Joachim Funke

2 Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Computer-simulated scenarios have been part of psychological research on problem solving for more than 40 years. The shift in emphasis from simple toy problems to complex, more real-life oriented problems has been accompanied by discussions about the best ways to assess the process of solving complex problems. Psychometric issues such as reliable assessments and addressing correlations with other instruments have been in the foreground of these discussions and have left the content validity of complex problem solving in the background. In this paper, we return the focus to content issues and address the important features that define complex problems.

Succeeding in the 21st century requires many competencies, including creativity, life-long learning, and collaboration skills (e.g., National Research Council, 2011 ; Griffin and Care, 2015 ), to name only a few. One competence that seems to be of central importance is the ability to solve complex problems ( Mainzer, 2009 ). Mainzer quotes the Nobel prize winner Simon (1957) who wrote as early as 1957:

The capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex problems is very small compared with the size of the problem whose solution is required for objectively rational behavior in the real world or even for a reasonable approximation to such objective rationality. (p. 198)

The shift from well-defined to ill-defined problems came about as a result of a disillusion with the “general problem solver” ( Newell et al., 1959 ): The general problem solver was a computer software intended to solve all kind of problems that can be expressed through well-formed formulas. However, it soon became clear that this procedure was in fact a “special problem solver” that could only solve well-defined problems in a closed space. But real-world problems feature open boundaries and have no well-determined solution. In fact, the world is full of wicked problems and clumsy solutions ( Verweij and Thompson, 2006 ). As a result, solving well-defined problems and solving ill-defined problems requires different cognitive processes ( Schraw et al., 1995 ; but see Funke, 2010 ).

Well-defined problems have a clear set of means for reaching a precisely described goal state. For example: in a match-stick arithmetic problem, a person receives a false arithmetic expression constructed out of matchsticks (e.g., IV = III + III). According to the instructions, moving one of the matchsticks will make the equations true. Here, both the problem (find the appropriate stick to move) and the goal state (true arithmetic expression; solution is: VI = III + III) are defined clearly.

Ill-defined problems have no clear problem definition, their goal state is not defined clearly, and the means of moving towards the (diffusely described) goal state are not clear. For example: The goal state for solving the political conflict in the near-east conflict between Israel and Palestine is not clearly defined (living in peaceful harmony with each other?) and even if the conflict parties would agree on a two-state solution, this goal again leaves many issues unresolved. This type of problem is called a “complex problem” and is of central importance to this paper. All psychological processes that occur within individual persons and deal with the handling of such ill-defined complex problems will be subsumed under the umbrella term “complex problem solving” (CPS).

Systematic research on CPS started in the 1970s with observations of the behavior of participants who were confronted with computer simulated microworlds. For example, in one of those microworlds participants assumed the role of executives who were tasked to manage a company over a certain period of time (see Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 , for a discussion of this methodology). Today, CPS is an established concept and has even influenced large-scale assessments such as PISA (“Programme for International Student Assessment”), organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD, 2014 ). According to the World Economic Forum, CPS is one of the most important competencies required in the future ( World Economic Forum, 2015 ). Numerous articles on the subject have been published in recent years, documenting the increasing research activity relating to this field. In the following collection of papers we list only those published in 2010 and later: theoretical papers ( Blech and Funke, 2010 ; Funke, 2010 ; Knauff and Wolf, 2010 ; Leutner et al., 2012 ; Selten et al., 2012 ; Wüstenberg et al., 2012 ; Greiff et al., 2013b ; Fischer and Neubert, 2015 ; Schoppek and Fischer, 2015 ), papers about measurement issues ( Danner et al., 2011a ; Greiff et al., 2012 , 2015a ; Alison et al., 2013 ; Gobert et al., 2015 ; Greiff and Fischer, 2013 ; Herde et al., 2016 ; Stadler et al., 2016 ), papers about applications ( Fischer and Neubert, 2015 ; Ederer et al., 2016 ; Tremblay et al., 2017 ), papers about differential effects ( Barth and Funke, 2010 ; Danner et al., 2011b ; Beckmann and Goode, 2014 ; Greiff and Neubert, 2014 ; Scherer et al., 2015 ; Meißner et al., 2016 ; Wüstenberg et al., 2016 ), one paper about developmental effects ( Frischkorn et al., 2014 ), one paper with a neuroscience background ( Osman, 2012 ) 1 , papers about cultural differences ( Güss and Dörner, 2011 ; Sonnleitner et al., 2014 ; Güss et al., 2015 ), papers about validity issues ( Goode and Beckmann, 2010 ; Greiff et al., 2013c ; Schweizer et al., 2013 ; Mainert et al., 2015 ; Funke et al., 2017 ; Greiff et al., 2017 , 2015b ; Kretzschmar et al., 2016 ; Kretzschmar, 2017 ), review papers and meta-analyses ( Osman, 2010 ; Stadler et al., 2015 ), and finally books ( Qudrat-Ullah, 2015 ; Csapó and Funke, 2017b ) and book chapters ( Funke, 2012 ; Hotaling et al., 2015 ; Funke and Greiff, 2017 ; Greiff and Funke, 2017 ; Csapó and Funke, 2017a ; Fischer et al., 2017 ; Molnàr et al., 2017 ; Tobinski and Fritz, 2017 ; Viehrig et al., 2017 ). In addition, a new “Journal of Dynamic Decision Making” (JDDM) has been launched ( Fischer et al., 2015 , 2016 ) to give the field an open-access outlet for research and discussion.

This paper aims to clarify aspects of validity: what should be meant by the term CPS and what not? This clarification seems necessary because misunderstandings in recent publications provide – from our point of view – a potentially misleading picture of the construct. We start this article with a historical review before attempting to systematize different positions. We conclude with a working definition.

Historical Review

The concept behind CPS goes back to the German phrase “komplexes Problemlösen” (CPS; the term “komplexes Problemlösen” was used as a book title by Funke, 1986 ). The concept was introduced in Germany by Dörner and colleagues in the mid-1970s (see Dörner et al., 1975 ; Dörner, 1975 ) for the first time. The German phrase was later translated to CPS in the titles of two edited volumes by Sternberg and Frensch (1991) and Frensch and Funke (1995a) that collected papers from different research traditions. Even though it looks as though the term was coined in the 1970s, Edwards (1962) used the term “dynamic decision making” to describe decisions that come in a sequence. He compared static with dynamic decision making, writing:

• simple  In dynamic situations, a new complication not found in the static situations arises. The environment in which the decision is set may be changing, either as a function of the sequence of decisions, or independently of them, or both. It is this possibility of an environment which changes while you collect information about it which makes the task of dynamic decision theory so difficult and so much fun. (p. 60)

The ability to solve complex problems is typically measured via dynamic systems that contain several interrelated variables that participants need to alter. Early work (see, e.g., Dörner, 1980 ) used a simulation scenario called “Lohhausen” that contained more than 2000 variables that represented the activities of a small town: Participants had to take over the role of a mayor for a simulated period of 10 years. The simulation condensed these ten years to ten hours in real time. Later, researchers used smaller dynamic systems as scenarios either based on linear equations (see, e.g., Funke, 1993 ) or on finite state automata (see, e.g., Buchner and Funke, 1993 ). In these contexts, CPS consisted of the identification and control of dynamic task environments that were previously unknown to the participants. Different task environments came along with different degrees of fidelity ( Gray, 2002 ).

According to Funke (2012) , the typical attributes of complex systems are (a) complexity of the problem situation which is usually represented by the sheer number of involved variables; (b) connectivity and mutual dependencies between involved variables; (c) dynamics of the situation, which reflects the role of time and developments within a system; (d) intransparency (in part or full) about the involved variables and their current values; and (e) polytely (greek term for “many goals”), representing goal conflicts on different levels of analysis. This mixture of features is similar to what is called VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) in modern approaches to management (e.g., Mack et al., 2016 ).

In his evaluation of the CPS movement, Sternberg (1995) compared (young) European approaches to CPS with (older) American research on expertise. His analysis of the differences between the European and American traditions shows advantages but also potential drawbacks for each side. He states (p. 301): “I believe that although there are problems with the European approach, it deals with some fundamental questions that American research scarcely addresses.” So, even though the echo of the European approach did not enjoy strong resonance in the US at that time, it was valued by scholars like Sternberg and others. Before attending to validity issues, we will first present a short review of different streams.

Different Approaches to CPS

In the short history of CPS research, different approaches can be identified ( Buchner, 1995 ; Fischer et al., 2017 ). To systematize, we differentiate between the following five lines of research:

• simple (a) The search for individual differences comprises studies identifying interindividual differences that affect the ability to solve complex problems. This line of research is reflected, for example, in the early work by Dörner et al. (1983) and their “Lohhausen” study. Here, naïve student participants took over the role of the mayor of a small simulated town named Lohhausen for a simulation period of ten years. According to the results of the authors, it is not intelligence (as measured by conventional IQ tests) that predicts performance, but it is the ability to stay calm in the face of a challenging situation and the ability to switch easily between an analytic mode of processing and a more holistic one.
• simple (b) The search for cognitive processes deals with the processes behind understanding complex dynamic systems. Representative of this line of research is, for example, Berry and Broadbent’s (1984) work on implicit and explicit learning processes when people interact with a dynamic system called “Sugar Production”. They found that those who perform best in controlling a dynamic system can do so implicitly, without explicit knowledge of details regarding the systems’ relations.
• simple (c) The search for system factors seeks to identify the aspects of dynamic systems that determine the difficulty of complex problems and make some problems harder than others. Representative of this line of research is, for example, work by Funke (1985) , who systematically varied the number of causal effects within a dynamic system or the presence/absence of eigendynamics. He found, for example, that solution quality decreases as the number of systems relations increases.
• simple (d) The psychometric approach develops measurement instruments that can be used as an alternative to classical IQ tests, as something that goes “beyond IQ”. The MicroDYN approach ( Wüstenberg et al., 2012 ) is representative for this line of research that presents an alternative to reasoning tests (like Raven matrices). These authors demonstrated that a small improvement in predicting school grade point average beyond reasoning is possible with MicroDYN tests.
• simple (e) The experimental approach explores CPS under different experimental conditions. This approach uses CPS assessment instruments to test hypotheses derived from psychological theories and is sometimes used in research about cognitive processes (see above). Exemplary for this line of research is the work by Rohe et al. (2016) , who test the usefulness of “motto goals” in the context of complex problems compared to more traditional learning and performance goals. Motto goals differ from pure performance goals by activating positive affect and should lead to better goal attainment especially in complex situations (the mentioned study found no effect).

To be clear: these five approaches are not mutually exclusive and do overlap. But the differentiation helps to identify different research communities and different traditions. These communities had different opinions about scaling complexity.

The Race for Complexity: Use of More and More Complex Systems

In the early years of CPS research, microworlds started with systems containing about 20 variables (“Tailorshop”), soon reached 60 variables (“Moro”), and culminated in systems with about 2000 variables (“Lohhausen”). This race for complexity ended with the introduction of the concept of “minimal complex systems” (MCS; Greiff and Funke, 2009 ; Funke and Greiff, 2017 ), which ushered in a search for the lower bound of complexity instead of the higher bound, which could not be defined as easily. The idea behind this concept was that whereas the upper limits of complexity are unbound, the lower limits might be identifiable. Imagine starting with a simple system containing two variables with a simple linear connection between them; then, step by step, increase the number of variables and/or the type of connections. One soon reaches a point where the system can no longer be considered simple and has become a “complex system”. This point represents a minimal complex system. Despite some research having been conducted in this direction, the point of transition from simple to complex has not been identified clearly as of yet.

Some years later, the original “minimal complex systems” approach ( Greiff and Funke, 2009 ) shifted to the “multiple complex systems” approach ( Greiff et al., 2013a ). This shift is more than a slight change in wording: it is important because it taps into the issue of validity directly. Minimal complex systems have been introduced in the context of challenges from large-scale assessments like PISA 2012 that measure new aspects of problem solving, namely interactive problems besides static problem solving ( Greiff and Funke, 2017 ). PISA 2012 required test developers to remain within testing time constraints (given by the school class schedule). Also, test developers needed a large item pool for the construction of a broad class of problem solving items. It was clear from the beginning that MCS deal with simple dynamic situations that require controlled interaction: the exploration and control of simple ticket machines, simple mobile phones, or simple MP3 players (all of these example domains were developed within PISA 2012) – rather than really complex situations like managerial or political decision making.

As a consequence of this subtle but important shift in interpreting the letters MCS, the definition of CPS became a subject of debate recently ( Funke, 2014a ; Greiff and Martin, 2014 ; Funke et al., 2017 ). In the words of Funke (2014b , p. 495):

• simple  It is funny that problems that nowadays come under the term ‘CPS’, are less complex (in terms of the previously described attributes of complex situations) than at the beginning of this new research tradition. The emphasis on psychometric qualities has led to a loss of variety. Systems thinking requires more than analyzing models with two or three linear equations – nonlinearity, cyclicity, rebound effects, etc. are inherent features of complex problems and should show up at least in some of the problems used for research and assessment purposes. Minimal complex systems run the danger of becoming minimal valid systems.

Searching for minimal complex systems is not the same as gaining insight into the way how humans deal with complexity and uncertainty. For psychometric purposes, it is appropriate to reduce complexity to a minimum; for understanding problem solving under conditions of overload, intransparency, and dynamics, it is necessary to realize those attributes with reasonable strength. This aspect is illustrated in the next section.

Importance of the Validity Issue

The most important reason for discussing the question of what complex problem solving is and what it is not stems from its phenomenology: if we lose sight of our phenomena, we are no longer doing good psychology. The relevant phenomena in the context of complex problems encompass many important aspects. In this section, we discuss four phenomena that are specific to complex problems. We consider these phenomena as critical for theory development and for the construction of assessment instruments (i.e., microworlds). These phenomena require theories for explaining them and they require assessment instruments eliciting them in a reliable way.

The first phenomenon is the emergency reaction of the intellectual system ( Dörner, 1980 ): When dealing with complex systems, actors tend to (a) reduce their intellectual level by decreasing self-reflections, by decreasing their intentions, by stereotyping, and by reducing their realization of intentions, (b) they show a tendency for fast action with increased readiness for risk, with increased violations of rules, and with increased tendency to escape the situation, and (c) they degenerate their hypotheses formation by construction of more global hypotheses and reduced tests of hypotheses, by increasing entrenchment, and by decontextualizing their goals. This phenomenon illustrates the strong connection between cognition, emotion, and motivation that has been emphasized by Dörner (see, e.g., Dörner and Güss, 2013 ) from the beginning of his research tradition; the emergency reaction reveals a shift in the mode of information processing under the pressure of complexity.

The second phenomenon comprises cross-cultural differences with respect to strategy use ( Strohschneider and Güss, 1999 ; Güss and Wiley, 2007 ; Güss et al., 2015 ). Results from complex task environments illustrate the strong influence of context and background knowledge to an extent that cannot be found for knowledge-poor problems. For example, in a comparison between Brazilian and German participants, it turned out that Brazilians accept the given problem descriptions and are more optimistic about the results of their efforts, whereas Germans tend to inquire more about the background of the problems and take a more active approach but are less optimistic (according to Strohschneider and Güss, 1998 , p. 695).

The third phenomenon relates to failures that occur during the planning and acting stages ( Jansson, 1994 ; Ramnarayan et al., 1997 ), illustrating that rational procedures seem to be unlikely to be used in complex situations. The potential for failures ( Dörner, 1996 ) rises with the complexity of the problem. Jansson (1994) presents seven major areas for failures with complex situations: acting directly on current feedback; insufficient systematization; insufficient control of hypotheses and strategies; lack of self-reflection; selective information gathering; selective decision making; and thematic vagabonding.

The fourth phenomenon describes (a lack of) training and transfer effects ( Kretzschmar and Süß, 2015 ), which again illustrates the context dependency of strategies and knowledge (i.e., there is no strategy that is so universal that it can be used in many different problem situations). In their own experiment, the authors could show training effects only for knowledge acquisition, not for knowledge application. Only with specific feedback, performance in complex environments can be increased ( Engelhart et al., 2017 ).

These four phenomena illustrate why the type of complexity (or degree of simplicity) used in research really matters. Furthermore, they demonstrate effects that are specific for complex problems, but not for toy problems. These phenomena direct the attention to the important question: does the stimulus material used (i.e., the computer-simulated microworld) tap and elicit the manifold of phenomena described above?

Dealing with partly unknown complex systems requires courage, wisdom, knowledge, grit, and creativity. In creativity research, “little c” and “BIG C” are used to differentiate between everyday creativity and eminent creativity ( Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007 ; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009 ). Everyday creativity is important for solving everyday problems (e.g., finding a clever fix for a broken spoke on my bicycle), eminent creativity changes the world (e.g., inventing solar cells for energy production). Maybe problem solving research should use a similar differentiation between “little p” and “BIG P” to mark toy problems on the one side and big societal challenges on the other. The question then remains: what can we learn about BIG P by studying little p? What phenomena are present in both types, and what phenomena are unique to each of the two extremes?

Discussing research on CPS requires reflecting on the field’s research methods. Even if the experimental approach has been successful for testing hypotheses (for an overview of older work, see Funke, 1995 ), other methods might provide additional and novel insights. Complex phenomena require complex approaches to understand them. The complex nature of complex systems imposes limitations on psychological experiments: The more complex the environments, the more difficult is it to keep conditions under experimental control. And if experiments have to be run in labs one should bring enough complexity into the lab to establish the phenomena mentioned, at least in part.

There are interesting options to be explored (again): think-aloud protocols , which have been discredited for many years ( Nisbett and Wilson, 1977 ) and yet are a valuable source for theory testing ( Ericsson and Simon, 1983 ); introspection ( Jäkel and Schreiber, 2013 ), which seems to be banned from psychological methods but nevertheless offers insights into thought processes; the use of life-streaming ( Wendt, 2017 ), a medium in which streamers generate a video stream of think-aloud data in computer-gaming; political decision-making ( Dhami et al., 2015 ) that demonstrates error-proneness in groups; historical case studies ( Dörner and Güss, 2011 ) that give insights into the thinking styles of political leaders; the use of the critical incident technique ( Reuschenbach, 2008 ) to construct complex scenarios; and simulations with different degrees of fidelity ( Gray, 2002 ).

The methods tool box is full of instruments that have to be explored more carefully before any individual instrument receives a ban or research narrows its focus to only one paradigm for data collection. Brehmer and Dörner (1993) discussed the tensions between “research in the laboratory and research in the field”, optimistically concluding “that the new methodology of computer-simulated microworlds will provide us with the means to bridge the gap between the laboratory and the field” (p. 183). The idea behind this optimism was that computer-simulated scenarios would bring more complexity from the outside world into the controlled lab environment. But this is not true for all simulated scenarios. In his paper on simulated environments, Gray (2002) differentiated computer-simulated environments with respect to three dimensions: (1) tractability (“the more training subjects require before they can use a simulated task environment, the less tractable it is”, p. 211), correspondence (“High correspondence simulated task environments simulate many aspects of one task environment. Low correspondence simulated task environments simulate one aspect of many task environments”, p. 214), and engagement (“A simulated task environment is engaging to the degree to which it involves and occupies the participants; that is, the degree to which they agree to take it seriously”, p. 217). But the mere fact that a task is called a “computer-simulated task environment” does not mean anything specific in terms of these three dimensions. This is one of several reasons why we should differentiate between those studies that do not address the core features of CPS and those that do.

What is not CPS?

Even though a growing number of references claiming to deal with complex problems exist (e.g., Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2015 ; Greiff et al., 2016 ), it would be better to label the requirements within these tasks “dynamic problem solving,” as it has been done adequately in earlier work ( Greiff et al., 2012 ). The dynamics behind on-off-switches ( Thimbleby, 2007 ) are remarkable but not really complex. Small nonlinear systems that exhibit stunningly complex and unstable behavior do exist – but they are not used in psychometric assessments of so-called CPS. There are other small systems (like MicroDYN scenarios: Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2014 ) that exhibit simple forms of system behavior that are completely predictable and stable. This type of simple systems is used frequently. It is even offered commercially as a complex problem-solving test called COMPRO ( Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2015 ) for business applications. But a closer look reveals that the label is not used correctly; within COMPRO, the used linear equations are far from being complex and the system can be handled properly by using only one strategy (see for more details Funke et al., 2017 ).

Why do simple linear systems not fall within CPS? At the surface, nonlinear and linear systems might appear similar because both only include 3–5 variables. But the difference is in terms of systems behavior as well as strategies and learning. If the behavior is simple (as in linear systems where more input is related to more output and vice versa), the system can be easily understood (participants in the MicroDYN world have 3 minutes to explore a complex system). If the behavior is complex (as in systems that contain strange attractors or negative feedback loops), things become more complicated and much more observation is needed to identify the hidden structure of the unknown system ( Berry and Broadbent, 1984 ; Hundertmark et al., 2015 ).

Another issue is learning. If tasks can be solved using a single (and not so complicated) strategy, steep learning curves are to be expected. The shift from problem solving to learned routine behavior occurs rapidly, as was demonstrated by Luchins (1942) . In his water jar experiments, participants quickly acquired a specific strategy (a mental set) for solving certain measurement problems that they later continued applying to problems that would have allowed for easier approaches. In the case of complex systems, learning can occur only on very general, abstract levels because it is difficult for human observers to make specific predictions. Routines dealing with complex systems are quite different from routines relating to linear systems.

What should not be studied under the label of CPS are pure learning effects, multiple-cue probability learning, or tasks that can be solved using a single strategy. This last issue is a problem for MicroDYN tasks that rely strongly on the VOTAT strategy (“vary one thing at a time”; see Tschirgi, 1980 ). In real-life, it is hard to imagine a business manager trying to solve her or his problems by means of VOTAT.

What is CPS?

In the early days of CPS research, planet Earth’s dynamics and complexities gained attention through such books as “The limits to growth” ( Meadows et al., 1972 ) and “Beyond the limits” ( Meadows et al., 1992 ). In the current decade, for example, the World Economic Forum (2016) attempts to identify the complexities and risks of our modern world. In order to understand the meaning of complexity and uncertainty, taking a look at the worlds’ most pressing issues is helpful. Searching for strategies to cope with these problems is a difficult task: surely there is no place for the simple principle of “vary-one-thing-at-a-time” (VOTAT) when it comes to global problems. The VOTAT strategy is helpful in the context of simple problems ( Wüstenberg et al., 2014 ); therefore, whether or not VOTAT is helpful in a given problem situation helps us distinguish simple from complex problems.

Because there exist no clear-cut strategies for complex problems, typical failures occur when dealing with uncertainty ( Dörner, 1996 ; Güss et al., 2015 ). Ramnarayan et al. (1997) put together a list of generic errors (e.g., not developing adequate action plans; lack of background control; learning from experience blocked by stereotype knowledge; reactive instead of proactive action) that are typical of knowledge-rich complex systems but cannot be found in simple problems.

Complex problem solving is not a one-dimensional, low-level construct. On the contrary, CPS is a multi-dimensional bundle of competencies existing at a high level of abstraction, similar to intelligence (but going beyond IQ). As Funke et al. (2018) state: “Assessment of transversal (in educational contexts: cross-curricular) competencies cannot be done with one or two types of assessment. The plurality of skills and competencies requires a plurality of assessment instruments.”

There are at least three different aspects of complex systems that are part of our understanding of a complex system: (1) a complex system can be described at different levels of abstraction; (2) a complex system develops over time, has a history, a current state, and a (potentially unpredictable) future; (3) a complex system is knowledge-rich and activates a large semantic network, together with a broad list of potential strategies (domain-specific as well as domain-general).

Complex problem solving is not only a cognitive process but is also an emotional one ( Spering et al., 2005 ; Barth and Funke, 2010 ) and strongly dependent on motivation (low-stakes versus high-stakes testing; see Hermes and Stelling, 2016 ).

Furthermore, CPS is a dynamic process unfolding over time, with different phases and with more differentiation than simply knowledge acquisition and knowledge application. Ideally, the process should entail identifying problems (see Dillon, 1982 ; Lee and Cho, 2007 ), even if in experimental settings, problems are provided to participants a priori . The more complex and open a given situation, the more options can be generated (T. S. Schweizer et al., 2016 ). In closed problems, these processes do not occur in the same way.

In analogy to the difference between formative (process-oriented) and summative (result-oriented) assessment ( Wiliam and Black, 1996 ; Bennett, 2011 ), CPS should not be reduced to the mere outcome of a solution process. The process leading up to the solution, including detours and errors made along the way, might provide a more differentiated impression of a person’s problem-solving abilities and competencies than the final result of such a process. This is one of the reasons why CPS environments are not, in fact, complex intelligence tests: research on CPS is not only about the outcome of the decision process, but it is also about the problem-solving process itself.

Complex problem solving is part of our daily life: finding the right person to share one’s life with, choosing a career that not only makes money, but that also makes us happy. Of course, CPS is not restricted to personal problems – life on Earth gives us many hard nuts to crack: climate change, population growth, the threat of war, the use and distribution of natural resources. In sum, many societal challenges can be seen as complex problems. To reduce that complexity to a one-hour lab activity on a random Friday afternoon puts it out of context and does not address CPS issues.

Theories about CPS should specify which populations they apply to. Across populations, one thing to consider is prior knowledge. CPS research with experts (e.g., Dew et al., 2009 ) is quite different from problem solving research using tasks that intentionally do not require any specific prior knowledge (see, e.g., Beckmann and Goode, 2014 ).

More than 20 years ago, Frensch and Funke (1995b) defined CPS as follows:

• simple  CPS occurs to overcome barriers between a given state and a desired goal state by means of behavioral and/or cognitive, multi-step activities. The given state, goal state, and barriers between given state and goal state are complex, change dynamically during problem solving, and are intransparent. The exact properties of the given state, goal state, and barriers are unknown to the solver at the outset. CPS implies the efficient interaction between a solver and the situational requirements of the task, and involves a solver’s cognitive, emotional, personal, and social abilities and knowledge. (p. 18)

The above definition is rather formal and does not account for content or relations between the simulation and the real world. In a sense, we need a new definition of CPS that addresses these issues. Based on our previous arguments, we propose the following working definition:

• simple  Complex problem solving is a collection of self-regulated psychological processes and activities necessary in dynamic environments to achieve ill-defined goals that cannot be reached by routine actions. Creative combinations of knowledge and a broad set of strategies are needed. Solutions are often more bricolage than perfect or optimal. The problem-solving process combines cognitive, emotional, and motivational aspects, particularly in high-stakes situations. Complex problems usually involve knowledge-rich requirements and collaboration among different persons.

The main differences to the older definition lie in the emphasis on (a) the self-regulation of processes, (b) creativity (as opposed to routine behavior), (c) the bricolage type of solution, and (d) the role of high-stakes challenges. Our new definition incorporates some aspects that have been discussed in this review but were not reflected in the 1995 definition, which focused on attributes of complex problems like dynamics or intransparency.

This leads us to the final reflection about the role of CPS for dealing with uncertainty and complexity in real life. We will distinguish thinking from reasoning and introduce the sense of possibility as an important aspect of validity.

CPS as Combining Reasoning and Thinking in an Uncertain Reality

Leading up to the Battle of Borodino in Leo Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky explains the concept of war to his friend Pierre. Pierre expects war to resemble a game of chess: You position the troops and attempt to defeat your opponent by moving them in different directions.

“Far from it!”, Andrei responds. “In chess, you know the knight and his moves, you know the pawn and his combat strength. While in war, a battalion is sometimes stronger than a division and sometimes weaker than a company; it all depends on circumstances that can never be known. In war, you do not know the position of your enemy; some things you might be able to observe, some things you have to divine (but that depends on your ability to do so!) and many things cannot even be guessed at. In chess, you can see all of your opponent’s possible moves. In war, that is impossible. If you decide to attack, you cannot know whether the necessary conditions are met for you to succeed. Many a time, you cannot even know whether your troops will follow your orders…”

In essence, war is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. A good commander (or politician) can add to that what he or she sees, tentatively fill in the blanks – and not just by means of logical deduction but also by intelligently bridging missing links. A bad commander extrapolates from what he sees and thus arrives at improper conclusions.

Many languages differentiate between two modes of mentalizing; for instance, the English language distinguishes between ‘thinking’ and ‘reasoning’. Reasoning denotes acute and exact mentalizing involving logical deductions. Such deductions are usually based on evidence and counterevidence. Thinking, however, is what is required to write novels. It is the construction of an initially unknown reality. But it is not a pipe dream, an unfounded process of fabrication. Rather, thinking asks us to imagine reality (“Wirklichkeitsfantasie”). In other words, a novelist has to possess a “sense of possibility” (“Möglichkeitssinn”, Robert Musil; in German, sense of possibility is often used synonymously with imagination even though imagination is not the same as sense of possibility, for imagination also encapsulates the impossible). This sense of possibility entails knowing the whole (or several wholes) or being able to construe an unknown whole that could accommodate a known part. The whole has to align with sociological and geographical givens, with the mentality of certain peoples or groups, and with the laws of physics and chemistry. Otherwise, the entire venture is ill-founded. A sense of possibility does not aim for the moon but imagines something that might be possible but has not been considered possible or even potentially possible so far.

Thinking is a means to eliminate uncertainty. This process requires both of the modes of thinking we have discussed thus far. Economic, political, or ecological decisions require us to first consider the situation at hand. Though certain situational aspects can be known, but many cannot. In fact, von Clausewitz (1832) posits that only about 25% of the necessary information is available when a military decision needs to be made. Even then, there is no way to guarantee that whatever information is available is also correct: Even if a piece of information was completely accurate yesterday, it might no longer apply today.

Once our sense of possibility has helped grasping a situation, problem solvers need to call on their reasoning skills. Not every situation requires the same action, and we may want to act this way or another to reach this or that goal. This appears logical, but it is a logic based on constantly shifting grounds: We cannot know whether necessary conditions are met, sometimes the assumptions we have made later turn out to be incorrect, and sometimes we have to revise our assumptions or make completely new ones. It is necessary to constantly switch between our sense of possibility and our sense of reality, that is, to switch between thinking and reasoning. It is an arduous process, and some people handle it well, while others do not.

If we are to believe Tuchman’s (1984) book, “The March of Folly”, most politicians and commanders are fools. According to Tuchman, not much has changed in the 3300 years that have elapsed since the misguided Trojans decided to welcome the left-behind wooden horse into their city that would end up dismantling Troy’s defensive walls. The Trojans, too, had been warned, but decided not to heed the warning. Although Laocoön had revealed the horse’s true nature to them by attacking it with a spear, making the weapons inside the horse ring, the Trojans refused to see the forest for the trees. They did not want to listen, they wanted the war to be over, and this desire ended up shaping their perception.

The objective of psychology is to predict and explain human actions and behavior as accurately as possible. However, thinking cannot be investigated by limiting its study to neatly confined fractions of reality such as the realms of propositional logic, chess, Go tasks, the Tower of Hanoi, and so forth. Within these systems, there is little need for a sense of possibility. But a sense of possibility – the ability to divine and construe an unknown reality – is at least as important as logical reasoning skills. Not researching the sense of possibility limits the validity of psychological research. All economic and political decision making draws upon this sense of possibility. By not exploring it, psychological research dedicated to the study of thinking cannot further the understanding of politicians’ competence and the reasons that underlie political mistakes. Christopher Clark identifies European diplomats’, politicians’, and commanders’ inability to form an accurate representation of reality as a reason for the outbreak of World War I. According to Clark’s (2012) book, “The Sleepwalkers”, the politicians of the time lived in their own make-believe world, wrongfully assuming that it was the same world everyone else inhabited. If CPS research wants to make significant contributions to the world, it has to acknowledge complexity and uncertainty as important aspects of it.

For more than 40 years, CPS has been a new subject of psychological research. During this time period, the initial emphasis on analyzing how humans deal with complex, dynamic, and uncertain situations has been lost. What is subsumed under the heading of CPS in modern research has lost the original complexities of real-life problems. From our point of view, the challenges of the 21st century require a return to the origins of this research tradition. We would encourage researchers in the field of problem solving to come back to the original ideas. There is enough complexity and uncertainty in the world to be studied. Improving our understanding of how humans deal with these global and pressing problems would be a worthwhile enterprise.

Author Contributions

JF drafted a first version of the manuscript, DD added further text and commented on the draft. JF finalized the manuscript.

Authors Note

After more than 40 years of controversial discussions between both authors, this is the first joint paper. We are happy to have done this now! We have found common ground!

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for the continuous support of their research over many years. Thanks to Daniel Holt for his comments on validity issues, thanks to Julia Nolte who helped us by translating German text excerpts into readable English and helped us, together with Keri Hartman, to improve our style and grammar – thanks for that! We also thank the two reviewers for their helpful critical comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Finally, we acknowledge financial support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg within their funding programme Open Access Publishing .

1 The fMRI-paper from Anderson (2012) uses the term “complex problem solving” for tasks that do not fall in our understanding of CPS and is therefore excluded from this list.

• Alison L., van den Heuvel C., Waring S., Power N., Long A., O’Hara T., et al. (2013). Immersive simulated learning environments for researching critical incidents: a knowledge synthesis of the literature and experiences of studying high-risk strategic decision making. J. Cogn. Eng. Deci. Mak. 7 255–272. 10.1177/1555343412468113 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson J. R. (2012). Tracking problem solving by multivariate pattern analysis and hidden markov model algorithms. Neuropsychologia 50 487–498. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.07.025 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barth C. M., Funke J. (2010). Negative affective environments improve complex solving performance. Cogn. Emot. 24 1259–1268. 10.1080/02699930903223766 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckmann J. F., Goode N. (2014). The benefit of being naïve and knowing it: the unfavourable impact of perceived context familiarity on learning in complex problem solving tasks. Instruct. Sci. 42 271–290. 10.1007/s11251-013-9280-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beghetto R. A., Kaufman J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: a case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychol. Aesthetics Creat. Arts 1 73–79. 10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 18 5–25. 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry D. C., Broadbent D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 36 209–231. 10.1080/14640748408402156 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blech C., Funke J. (2010). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too: how induced goal conflicts affect complex problem solving. Open Psychol. J. 3 42–53. 10.2174/1874350101003010042 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brehmer B., Dörner D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9 171–184. 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchner A. (1995). “Basic topics and approaches to the study of complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 27–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchner A., Funke J. (1993). Finite state automata: dynamic task environments in problem solving research. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 46A , 83–118. 10.1080/14640749308401068 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark C. (2012). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 . London: Allen Lane. [ Google Scholar ]
• Csapó B., Funke J. (2017a). “The development and assessment of problem solving in 21st-century schools,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 19–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Csapó B., Funke J. (eds) (2017b). The Nature of Problem Solving. Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Danner D., Hagemann D., Holt D. V., Hager M., Schankin A., Wüstenberg S., et al. (2011a). Measuring performance in dynamic decision making. Reliability and validity of the Tailorshop simulation. J. Ind. Differ. 32 225–233. 10.1027/1614-0001/a000055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danner D., Hagemann D., Schankin A., Hager M., Funke J. (2011b). Beyond IQ: a latent state-trait analysis of general intelligence, dynamic decision making, and implicit learning. Intelligence 39 323–334. 10.1016/j.intell.2011.06.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dew N., Read S., Sarasvathy S. D., Wiltbank R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: differences between experts and novices. J. Bus. Ventur. 24 287–309. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhami M. K., Mandel D. R., Mellers B. A., Tetlock P. E. (2015). Improving intelligence analysis with decision science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10 753–757. 10.1177/1745691615598511 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dillon J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. J. Creat. Behav. 16 97–111. 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1982.tb00326.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1975). Wie Menschen eine Welt verbessern wollten [How people wanted to improve a world]. Bild Der Wissenschaft 12 48–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1980). On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulat. Gam. 11 87–106. 10.1177/104687818001100108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1996). The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. New York, NY: Basic Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Drewes U., Reither F. (1975). “Über das Problemlösen in sehr komplexen Realitätsbereichen,” in Bericht über den 29. Kongreß der DGfPs in Salzburg 1974 Band 1 , ed. Tack W. H. (Göttingen: Hogrefe; ), 339–340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Güss C. D. (2011). A psychological analysis of Adolf Hitler’s decision making as commander in chief: summa confidentia et nimius metus. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 15 37–49. 10.1037/a0022375 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Güss C. D. (2013). PSI: a computational architecture of cognition, motivation, and emotion. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17 297–317. 10.1037/a0032947 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Kreuzig H. W., Reither F., Stäudel T. (1983). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern: Huber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ederer P., Patt A., Greiff S. (2016). Complex problem-solving skills and innovativeness – evidence from occupational testing and regional data. Eur. J. Educ. 51 244–256. 10.1111/ejed.12176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edwards W. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabiIistic information processing. Hum. Factors 4 59–73. 10.1177/001872086200400201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engelhart M., Funke J., Sager S. (2017). A web-based feedback study on optimization-based training and analysis of human decision making. J. Dynamic Dec. Mak. 3 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson K. A., Simon H. A. (1983). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports As Data. Cambridge, MA: Bradford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer A., Greiff S., Funke J. (2017). “The history of complex problem solving,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 107–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer A., Holt D. V., Funke J. (2015). Promoting the growing field of dynamic decision making. J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 1 1–3. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23807 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer A., Holt D. V., Funke J. (2016). The first year of the “journal of dynamic decision making.” J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 2 1–2. 10.11588/jddm.2016.1.28995 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer A., Neubert J. C. (2015). The multiple faces of complex problems: a model of problem solving competency and its implications for training and assessment. J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 1 1–14. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23945 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frensch P. A., Funke J. (eds) (1995a). Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frensch P. A., Funke J. (1995b). “Definitions, traditions, and a general framework for understanding complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; ), 3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frischkorn G. T., Greiff S., Wüstenberg S. (2014). The development of complex problem solving in adolescence: a latent growth curve analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 106 1004–1020. 10.1037/a0037114 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1985). Steuerung dynamischer Systeme durch Aufbau und Anwendung subjektiver Kausalmodelle. Z. Psychol. 193 435–457. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1986). Komplexes Problemlösen - Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven [Complex Problem Solving: Survey and Perspectives]. Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1993). “Microworlds based on linear equation systems: a new approach to complex problem solving and experimental results,” in The Cognitive Psychology of Knowledge , eds Strube G., Wender K.-F. (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers; ), 313–330. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1995). “Experimental research on complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 243–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2010). Complex problem solving: a case for complex cognition? Cogn. Process. 11 133–142. 10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2012). “Complex problem solving,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning Vol. 38 ed. Seel N. M. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 682–685. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2014a). Analysis of minimal complex systems and complex problem solving require different forms of causal cognition. Front. Psychol. 5 : 739 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00739 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2014b). “Problem solving: what are the important questions?,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , eds Bello P., Guarini M., McShane M., Scassellati B. (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society; ), 493–498. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J., Fischer A., Holt D. V. (2017). When less is less: solving multiple simple problems is not complex problem solving—A comment on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5 : 5 10.3390/jintelligence5010005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J., Fischer A., Holt D. V. (2018). “Competencies for complexity: problem solving in the 21st century,” in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills , eds Care E., Griffin P., Wilson M. (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J., Greiff S. (2017). “Dynamic problem solving: multiple-item testing based on minimally complex systems,” in Competence Assessment in Education. Research, Models and Instruments , eds Leutner D., Fleischer J., Grünkorn J., Klieme E. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 427–443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobert J. D., Kim Y. J., Pedro M. A. S., Kennedy M., Betts C. G. (2015). Using educational data mining to assess students’ skills at designing and conducting experiments within a complex systems microworld. Think. Skills Creat. 18 81–90. 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.04.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goode N., Beckmann J. F. (2010). You need to know: there is a causal relationship between structural knowledge and control performance in complex problem solving tasks. Intelligence 38 345–352. 10.1016/j.intell.2010.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray W. D. (2002). Simulated task environments: the role of high-fidelity simulations, scaled worlds, synthetic environments, and laboratory tasks in basic and applied cognitive research. Cogn. Sci. Q. 2 205–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Fischer A. (2013). Measuring complex problem solving: an educational application of psychological theories. J. Educ. Res. 5 38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Fischer A., Stadler M., Wüstenberg S. (2015a). Assessing complex problem-solving skills with multiple complex systems. Think. Reason. 21 356–382. 10.1080/13546783.2014.989263 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Stadler M., Sonnleitner P., Wolff C., Martin R. (2015b). Sometimes less is more: comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence 50 100–113. 10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Fischer A., Wüstenberg S., Sonnleitner P., Brunner M., Martin R. (2013a). A multitrait–multimethod study of assessment instruments for complex problem solving. Intelligence 41 579–596. 10.1016/j.intell.2013.07.012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Holt D. V., Funke J. (2013b). Perspectives on problem solving in educational assessment: analytical, interactive, and collaborative problem solving. J. Problem Solv. 5 71–91. 10.7771/1932-6246.1153 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Wüstenberg S., Molnár G., Fischer A., Funke J., Csapó B. (2013c). Complex problem solving in educational contexts—something beyond g: concept, assessment, measurement invariance, and construct validity. J. Educ. Psychol. 105 364–379. 10.1037/a0031856 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Funke J. (2009). “Measuring complex problem solving: the MicroDYN approach,” in The Transition to Computer-Based Assessment. New Approaches to Skills Assessment and Implications for Large-Scale Testing , eds Scheuermann F., Björnsson J. (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; ), 157–163. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Funke J. (2017). “Interactive problem solving: exploring the potential of minimal complex systems,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 93–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Martin R. (2014). What you see is what you (don’t) get: a comment on Funke’s (2014) opinion paper. Front. Psychol. 5 : 1120 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01120 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Neubert J. C. (2014). On the relation of complex problem solving, personality, fluid intelligence, and academic achievement. Learn. Ind. Diff. 36 37–48. 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.08.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Niepel C., Scherer R., Martin R. (2016). Understanding students’ performance in a computer-based assessment of complex problem solving: an analysis of behavioral data from computer-generated log files. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61 36–46. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.095 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Stadler M., Sonnleitner P., Wolff C., Martin R. (2017). Sometimes more is too much: a rejoinder to the commentaries on Greif et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5 : 6 10.3390/jintelligence5010006 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Wüstenberg S. (2014). Assessment with microworlds using MicroDYN: measurement invariance and latent mean comparisons. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 1 1–11. 10.1027/1015-5759/a000194 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Wüstenberg S. (2015). Komplexer Problemlösetest COMPRO [Complex Problem-Solving Test COMPRO]. Mödling: Schuhfried. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greiff S., Wüstenberg S., Funke J. (2012). Dynamic problem solving: a new assessment perspective. Appl. Psychol. Measure. 36 189–213. 10.1177/0146621612439620 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffin P., Care E. (2015). “The ATC21S method,” in Assessment and Taching of 21st Century Skills , eds Griffin P., Care E. (Dordrecht, NL: Springer; ), 3–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Güss C. D., Dörner D. (2011). Cultural differences in dynamic decision-making strategies in a non-linear, time-delayed task. Cogn. Syst. Res. 12 365–376. 10.1016/j.cogsys.2010.12.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güss C. D., Tuason M. T., Orduña L. V. (2015). Strategies, tactics, and errors in dynamic decision making in an Asian sample. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1 1–14. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.13131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güss C. D., Wiley B. (2007). Metacognition of problem-solving strategies in Brazil, India, and the United States. J. Cogn. Cult. 7 1–25. 10.1163/156853707X171793 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herde C. N., Wüstenberg S., Greiff S. (2016). Assessment of complex problem solving: what we know and what we don’t know. Appl. Meas. Educ. 29 265–277. 10.1080/08957347.2016.1209208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermes M., Stelling D. (2016). Context matters, but how much? Latent state – trait analysis of cognitive ability assessments. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 24 285–295. 10.1111/ijsa.12147 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hotaling J. M., Fakhari P., Busemeyer J. R. (2015). “Dynamic decision making,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 2nd Edn, eds Smelser N. J., Batles P. B. (New York, NY: Elsevier; ), 709–714. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hundertmark J., Holt D. V., Fischer A., Said N., Fischer H. (2015). System structure and cognitive ability as predictors of performance in dynamic system control tasks. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1 1–10. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.26416 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jäkel F., Schreiber C. (2013). Introspection in problem solving. J. Problem Solv. 6 20–33. 10.7771/1932-6246.1131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jansson A. (1994). Pathologies in dynamic decision making: consequences or precursors of failure? Sprache Kogn. 13 160–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman J. C., Beghetto R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four c model of creativity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 13 1–12. 10.1037/a0013688 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knauff M., Wolf A. G. (2010). Complex cognition: the science of human reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. Cogn. Process. 11 99–102. 10.1007/s10339-010-0362-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar A. (2017). Sometimes less is not enough: a commentary on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5 : 4 10.3390/jintelligence5010004 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar A., Neubert J. C., Wüstenberg S., Greiff S. (2016). Construct validity of complex problem solving: a comprehensive view on different facets of intelligence and school grades. Intelligence 54 55–69. 10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar A., Süß H.-M. (2015). A study on the training of complex problem solving competence. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1 1–14. 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.15455 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee H., Cho Y. (2007). Factors affecting problem finding depending on degree of structure of problem situation. J. Educ. Res. 101 113–123. 10.3200/JOER.101.2.113-125 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leutner D., Fleischer J., Wirth J., Greiff S., Funke J. (2012). Analytische und dynamische Problemlösekompetenz im Lichte internationaler Schulleistungsvergleichsstudien: Untersuchungen zur Dimensionalität. Psychol. Rundschau 63 34–42. 10.1026/0033-3042/a000108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luchins A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: the effect of einstellung. Psychol. Monogr. 54 1–95. 10.1037/h0093502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mack O., Khare A., Krämer A., Burgartz T. (eds) (2016). Managing in a VUCA world. Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mainert J., Kretzschmar A., Neubert J. C., Greiff S. (2015). Linking complex problem solving and general mental ability to career advancement: does a transversal skill reveal incremental predictive validity? Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 34 393–411. 10.1080/02601370.2015.1060024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mainzer K. (2009). Challenges of complexity in the 21st century. An interdisciplinary introduction. Eur. Rev. 17 219–236. 10.1017/S1062798709000714 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadows D. H., Meadows D. L., Randers J. (1992). Beyond the Limits. Vermont, VA: Chelsea Green Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadows D. H., Meadows D. L., Randers J., Behrens W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. New York, NY: Universe Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meißner A., Greiff S., Frischkorn G. T., Steinmayr R. (2016). Predicting complex problem solving and school grades with working memory and ability self-concept. Learn. Ind. Differ. 49 323–331. 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.04.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnàr G., Greiff S., Wüstenberg S., Fischer A. (2017). “Empirical study of computer-based assessment of domain-general complex problem-solving skills,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 125–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newell A., Shaw J. C., Simon H. A. (1959). A general problem-solving program for a computer. Comput. Automat. 8 10–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nisbett R. E., Wilson T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84 231–259. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2014). “PISA 2012 results,” in Creative Problem Solving: Students’ Skills in Tackling Real-Life problems , Vol. 5 (Paris: OECD Publishing; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Osman M. (2010). Controlling uncertainty: a review of human behavior in complex dynamic environments. Psychol. Bull. 136 65–86. 10.1037/a0017815 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osman M. (2012). The role of reward in dynamic decision making. Front. Neurosci. 6 : 35 10.3389/fnins.2012.00035 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qudrat-Ullah H. (2015). Better Decision Making in Complex, Dynamic Tasks. Training with Human-Facilitated Interactive Learning Environments. Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramnarayan S., Strohschneider S., Schaub H. (1997). Trappings of expertise and the pursuit of failure. Simulat. Gam. 28 28–43. 10.1177/1046878197281004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reuschenbach B. (2008). Planen und Problemlösen im Komplexen Handlungsfeld Pflege. Berlin: Logos. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rohe M., Funke J., Storch M., Weber J. (2016). Can motto goals outperform learning and performance goals? Influence of goal setting on performance, intrinsic motivation, processing style, and affect in a complex problem solving task. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 2 1–15. 10.11588/jddm.2016.1.28510 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scherer R., Greiff S., Hautamäki J. (2015). Exploring the relation between time on task and ability in complex problem solving. Intelligence 48 37–50. 10.1016/j.intell.2014.10.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoppek W., Fischer A. (2015). Complex problem solving – single ability or complex phenomenon? Front. Psychol. 6 : 1669 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01669 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schraw G., Dunkle M., Bendixen L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 9 523–538. 10.1002/acp.2350090605 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweizer F., Wüstenberg S., Greiff S. (2013). Validity of the MicroDYN approach: complex problem solving predicts school grades beyond working memory capacity. Learn. Ind. Differ. 24 42–52. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweizer T. S., Schmalenberger K. M., Eisenlohr-Moul T. A., Mojzisch A., Kaiser S., Funke J. (2016). Cognitive and affective aspects of creative option generation in everyday life situations. Front. Psychol. 7 : 1132 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01132 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selten R., Pittnauer S., Hohnisch M. (2012). Dealing with dynamic decision problems when knowledge of the environment is limited: an approach based on goal systems. J. Behav. Deci. Mak. 25 443–457. 10.1002/bdm.738 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations , 2nd Edn New York, NY: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnleitner P., Brunner M., Keller U., Martin R. (2014). Differential relations between facets of complex problem solving and students’ immigration background. J. Educ. Psychol. 106 681–695. 10.1037/a0035506 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spering M., Wagener D., Funke J. (2005). The role of emotions in complex problem solving. Cogn. Emot. 19 1252–1261. 10.1080/02699930500304886 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stadler M., Becker N., Gödker M., Leutner D., Greiff S. (2015). Complex problem solving and intelligence: a meta-analysis. Intelligence 53 92–101. 10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stadler M., Niepel C., Greiff S. (2016). Easily too difficult: estimating item difficulty in computer simulated microworlds. Comput. Hum. Behav. 65 100–106. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. (1995). “Expertise in complex problem solving: a comparison of alternative conceptions,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 295–321. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Frensch P. A. (1991). Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms. (eds) Sternberg R. J., Frensch P. A. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strohschneider S., Güss C. D. (1998). Planning and problem solving: differences between brazilian and german students. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 29 695–716. 10.1177/0022022198296002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strohschneider S., Güss C. D. (1999). The fate of the Moros: a cross-cultural exploration of strategies in complex and dynamic decision making. Int. J. Psychol. 34 235–252. 10.1080/002075999399873 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thimbleby H. (2007). Press On. Principles of Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobinski D. A., Fritz A. (2017). “EcoSphere: a new paradigm for problem solving in complex systems,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds Csapó B., Funke J. (Paris: OECD Publishing; ), 211–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tremblay S., Gagnon J.-F., Lafond D., Hodgetts H. M., Doiron M., Jeuniaux P. P. J. M. H. (2017). A cognitive prosthesis for complex decision-making. Appl. Ergon. 58 349–360. 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tschirgi J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: a hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Dev. 51 1–10. 10.2307/1129583 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuchman B. W. (1984). The March of Folly. From Troy to Vietnam. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verweij M., Thompson M. (eds) (2006). Clumsy Solutions for A Complex World. Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 10.1057/9780230624887 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viehrig K., Siegmund A., Funke J., Wüstenberg S., Greiff S. (2017). “The heidelberg inventory of geographic system competency model,” in Competence Assessment in Education. Research, Models and Instruments , eds Leutner D., Fleischer J., Grünkorn J., Klieme E. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 31–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• von Clausewitz C. (1832). Vom Kriege [On war]. Berlin: Dämmler. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wendt A. N. (2017). The empirical potential of live streaming beyond cognitive psychology. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 3 1–9. 10.11588/jddm.2017.1.33724 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiliam D., Black P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? Br. Educ. Res. J. 22 537–548. 10.1080/0141192960220502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum (2015). New Vsion for Education Unlocking the Potential of Technology. Geneva: World Economic Forum. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum (2016). Global Risks 2016: Insight Report , 11th Edn Geneva: World Economic Forum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüstenberg S., Greiff S., Funke J. (2012). Complex problem solving — more than reasoning? Intelligence 40 1–14. 10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüstenberg S., Greiff S., Vainikainen M.-P., Murphy K. (2016). Individual differences in students’ complex problem solving skills: how they evolve and what they imply. J. Educ. Psychol. 108 1028–1044. 10.1037/edu0000101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüstenberg S., Stadler M., Hautamäki J., Greiff S. (2014). The role of strategy knowledge for the application of strategies in complex problem solving tasks. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 19 127–146. 10.1007/s10758-014-9222-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Research Problem? Characteristics, Types, and Examples

A research problem is a gap in existing knowledge, a contradiction in an established theory, or a real-world challenge that a researcher aims to address in their research. It is at the heart of any scientific inquiry, directing the trajectory of an investigation. The statement of a problem orients the reader to the importance of the topic, sets the problem into a particular context, and defines the relevant parameters, providing the framework for reporting the findings. Therein lies the importance of research problem s.  

The formulation of well-defined research questions is central to addressing a research problem . A research question is a statement made in a question form to provide focus, clarity, and structure to the research endeavor. This helps the researcher design methodologies, collect data, and analyze results in a systematic and coherent manner. A study may have one or more research questions depending on the nature of the study.   

Identifying and addressing a research problem is very important. By starting with a pertinent problem , a scholar can contribute to the accumulation of evidence-based insights, solutions, and scientific progress, thereby advancing the frontier of research. Moreover, the process of formulating research problems and posing pertinent research questions cultivates critical thinking and hones problem-solving skills.   

Table of Contents

What is a Research Problem ?  

Before you conceive of your project, you need to ask yourself “ What is a research problem ?” A research problem definition can be broadly put forward as the primary statement of a knowledge gap or a fundamental challenge in a field, which forms the foundation for research. Conversely, the findings from a research investigation provide solutions to the problem .  

A research problem guides the selection of approaches and methodologies, data collection, and interpretation of results to find answers or solutions. A well-defined problem determines the generation of valuable insights and contributions to the broader intellectual discourse.  

Characteristics of a Research Problem  

Knowing the characteristics of a research problem is instrumental in formulating a research inquiry; take a look at the five key characteristics below:  

Novel : An ideal research problem introduces a fresh perspective, offering something new to the existing body of knowledge. It should contribute original insights and address unresolved matters or essential knowledge.   

Significant : A problem should hold significance in terms of its potential impact on theory, practice, policy, or the understanding of a particular phenomenon. It should be relevant to the field of study, addressing a gap in knowledge, a practical concern, or a theoretical dilemma that holds significance.  

Feasible: A practical research problem allows for the formulation of hypotheses and the design of research methodologies. A feasible research problem is one that can realistically be investigated given the available resources, time, and expertise. It should not be too broad or too narrow to explore effectively, and should be measurable in terms of its variables and outcomes. It should be amenable to investigation through empirical research methods, such as data collection and analysis, to arrive at meaningful conclusions A practical research problem considers budgetary and time constraints, as well as limitations of the problem . These limitations may arise due to constraints in methodology, resources, or the complexity of the problem.  

Clear and specific : A well-defined research problem is clear and specific, leaving no room for ambiguity; it should be easily understandable and precisely articulated. Ensuring specificity in the problem ensures that it is focused, addresses a distinct aspect of the broader topic and is not vague.  

Rooted in evidence: A good research problem leans on trustworthy evidence and data, while dismissing unverifiable information. It must also consider ethical guidelines, ensuring the well-being and rights of any individuals or groups involved in the study.

Types of Research Problems  

Across fields and disciplines, there are different types of research problems . We can broadly categorize them into three types.  

• Theoretical research problems

Theoretical research problems deal with conceptual and intellectual inquiries that may not involve empirical data collection but instead seek to advance our understanding of complex concepts, theories, and phenomena within their respective disciplines. For example, in the social sciences, research problem s may be casuist (relating to the determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience), difference (comparing or contrasting two or more phenomena), descriptive (aims to describe a situation or state), or relational (investigating characteristics that are related in some way).  

Here are some theoretical research problem examples :   

• Ethical frameworks that can provide coherent justifications for artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, especially in contexts involving autonomous decision-making and moral agency.  
• Determining how mathematical models can elucidate the gradual development of complex traits, such as intricate anatomical structures or elaborate behaviors, through successive generations.  
• Applied research problems

Applied or practical research problems focus on addressing real-world challenges and generating practical solutions to improve various aspects of society, technology, health, and the environment.  

Here are some applied research problem examples :   

• Studying the use of precision agriculture techniques to optimize crop yield and minimize resource waste.  
• Designing a more energy-efficient and sustainable transportation system for a city to reduce carbon emissions.  
• Action research problems

Action research problems aim to create positive change within specific contexts by involving stakeholders, implementing interventions, and evaluating outcomes in a collaborative manner.  

Here are some action research problem examples :   

• Partnering with healthcare professionals to identify barriers to patient adherence to medication regimens and devising interventions to address them.  
• Collaborating with a nonprofit organization to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs aimed at providing job training for underserved populations.  

These different types of research problems may give you some ideas when you plan on developing your own.  

How to Define a Research Problem  

You might now ask “ How to define a research problem ?” These are the general steps to follow:   

• Look for a broad problem area: Identify under-explored aspects or areas of concern, or a controversy in your topic of interest. Evaluate the significance of addressing the problem in terms of its potential contribution to the field, practical applications, or theoretical insights.
• Learn more about the problem: Read the literature, starting from historical aspects to the current status and latest updates. Rely on reputable evidence and data. Be sure to consult researchers who work in the relevant field, mentors, and peers. Do not ignore the gray literature on the subject.
• Identify the relevant variables and how they are related: Consider which variables are most important to the study and will help answer the research question. Once this is done, you will need to determine the relationships between these variables and how these relationships affect the research problem . 
• Think of practical aspects : Deliberate on ways that your study can be practical and feasible in terms of time and resources. Discuss practical aspects with researchers in the field and be open to revising the problem based on feedback. Refine the scope of the research problem to make it manageable and specific; consider the resources available, time constraints, and feasibility.
• Formulate the problem statement: Craft a concise problem statement that outlines the specific issue, its relevance, and why it needs further investigation.
• Stick to plans, but be flexible: When defining the problem , plan ahead but adhere to your budget and timeline. At the same time, consider all possibilities and ensure that the problem and question can be modified if needed.

Key Takeaways  

• A research problem concerns an area of interest, a situation necessitating improvement, an obstacle requiring eradication, or a challenge in theory or practical applications.   
• The importance of research problem is that it guides the research and helps advance human understanding and the development of practical solutions.  
• Research problem definition begins with identifying a broad problem area, followed by learning more about the problem, identifying the variables and how they are related, considering practical aspects, and finally developing the problem statement.  
• Different types of research problems include theoretical, applied, and action research problems , and these depend on the discipline and nature of the study.  
• An ideal problem is original, important, feasible, specific, and based on evidence.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Why is it important to define a research problem?  

Identifying potential issues and gaps as research problems is important for choosing a relevant topic and for determining a well-defined course of one’s research. Pinpointing a problem and formulating research questions can help researchers build their critical thinking, curiosity, and problem-solving abilities.   

How do I identify a research problem?  

Identifying a research problem involves recognizing gaps in existing knowledge, exploring areas of uncertainty, and assessing the significance of addressing these gaps within a specific field of study. This process often involves thorough literature review, discussions with experts, and considering practical implications.  

Can a research problem change during the research process?  

Yes, a research problem can change during the research process. During the course of an investigation a researcher might discover new perspectives, complexities, or insights that prompt a reevaluation of the initial problem. The scope of the problem, unforeseen or unexpected issues, or other limitations might prompt some tweaks. You should be able to adjust the problem to ensure that the study remains relevant and aligned with the evolving understanding of the subject matter.

How does a research problem relate to research questions or hypotheses?  

A research problem sets the stage for the study. Next, research questions refine the direction of investigation by breaking down the broader research problem into manageable components. Research questions are formulated based on the problem , guiding the investigation’s scope and objectives. The hypothesis provides a testable statement to validate or refute within the research process. All three elements are interconnected and work together to guide the research.  

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

How Does R Discovery’s Interplatform Capability Enhance Research Accessibility 

What is Convenience Sampling: Definition, Method, and Examples 

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Problem solving articles from across Nature Portfolio

Problem solving is the mental process of analyzing a situation, learning what options are available, and then choosing the alternative that will result in the desired outcome or some other selected goal.

Latest Research and Reviews

Predicting social experience from dyadic interaction dynamics: the BallGame, a novel paradigm to study social engagement

• Annika Lübbert
• Malte Sengelmann
• Florian Göschl

Patients recovering from COVID-19 who presented with anosmia during their acute episode have behavioral, functional, and structural brain alterations

• Leonie Kausel
• Alejandra Figueroa-Vargas
• Pablo Billeke

Toddlers strategically adapt their information search

Humans adaptively seek information to navigate their world. Here, the authors demonstrate toddlers’ advanced, adaptive information-seeking from 24 months, showcasing early emergence of complex exploration strategies.

• Francesco Poli
• Azzurra Ruggeri

Dynamic modulation of the processing of unpredicted technical errors by the posterior cingulate and the default mode network

• Zhiyan Wang
• Markus Becker
• Mark W. Greenlee

An EEG study on artistic and engineering mindsets in students in creative processes

• Peter R. N. Childs

Changes in semantic memory structure support successful problem-solving and analogical transfer

Using SemNets to test for changes in semantic distances between riddle-related concepts shows that solving a riddle and an analogous one benefit from a restructuring of problem representation.

• Théophile Bieth
• Yoed N. Kenett
• Emmanuelle Volle

News and Comment

Reliable social switch.

The macaque homologue of the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex tracks the reliability of social information and determines whether this information is used to guide choices during decision making.

• Jake Rogers

DishBrain plays Pong and promises more

An in vitro biological system of cultured brain cells has learned to play Pong. This feat opens up an avenue towards the convergence of biological and machine intelligence.

• Joshua Goldwag

Tinkering with tools leads to more success

• Teresa Schubert

Parallel processing of alternative approaches

Neuronal activity in the secondary motor cortex of mice engaged in a foraging task simultaneously represents multiple alternative decision-making strategies.

• Katherine Whalley

Teaching of 21st century skills needs to be informed by psychological research

The technological advancements and globalization of the 21st century require a broad set of skills beyond traditional subjects such as mathematics, reading, and science. Research in psychological science should inform best practice and evidence-based recommendations for teaching these skills.

• Samuel Greiff
• Francesca Borgonovi

Simulated brain solves problems

Quick links.

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

What Are Problem-Solving Skills? Definition and Examples

• Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn

Forage puts students first. Our blog articles are written independently by our editorial team. They have not been paid for or sponsored by our partners. See our full  editorial guidelines .

Why do employers hire employees? To help them solve problems. Whether you’re a financial analyst deciding where to invest your firm’s money, or a marketer trying to figure out which channel to direct your efforts, companies hire people to help them find solutions. Problem-solving is an essential and marketable soft skill in the workplace. 

So, how can you improve your problem-solving and show employers you have this valuable skill? In this guide, we’ll cover:

Problem-Solving Skills Definition

Why are problem-solving skills important, problem-solving skills examples, how to include problem-solving skills in a job application, how to improve problem-solving skills, problem-solving: the bottom line.

Problem-solving skills are the ability to identify problems, brainstorm and analyze answers, and implement the best solutions. An employee with good problem-solving skills is both a self-starter and a collaborative teammate; they are proactive in understanding the root of a problem and work with others to consider a wide range of solutions before deciding how to move forward. 

Examples of using problem-solving skills in the workplace include:

• Researching patterns to understand why revenue decreased last quarter
• Experimenting with a new marketing channel to increase website sign-ups
• Brainstorming content types to share with potential customers
• Testing calls to action to see which ones drive the most product sales
• Implementing a new workflow to automate a team process and increase productivity

Problem-solving skills are the most sought-after soft skill of 2022. In fact, 86% of employers look for problem-solving skills on student resumes, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers Job Outlook 2022 survey . 

It’s unsurprising why employers are looking for this skill: companies will always need people to help them find solutions to their problems. Someone proactive and successful at problem-solving is valuable to any team.

“Employers are looking for employees who can make decisions independently, especially with the prevalence of remote/hybrid work and the need to communicate asynchronously,” Eric Mochnacz, senior HR consultant at Red Clover, says. “Employers want to see individuals who can make well-informed decisions that mitigate risk, and they can do so without suffering from analysis paralysis.”

Showcase new skills

Build the confidence and practical skills that employers are looking for with Forage’s free job simulations.

Problem-solving includes three main parts: identifying the problem, analyzing possible solutions, and deciding on the best course of action.

>>MORE: Discover the right career for you based on your skills with a career aptitude test .

Research is the first step of problem-solving because it helps you understand the context of a problem. Researching a problem enables you to learn why the problem is happening. For example, is revenue down because of a new sales tactic? Or because of seasonality? Is there a problem with who the sales team is reaching out to? 

Research broadens your scope to all possible reasons why the problem could be happening. Then once you figure it out, it helps you narrow your scope to start solving it. 

Analysis is the next step of problem-solving. Now that you’ve identified the problem, analytical skills help you look at what potential solutions there might be.

“The goal of analysis isn’t to solve a problem, actually — it’s to better understand it because that’s where the real solution will be found,” Gretchen Skalka, owner of Career Insights Consulting, says. “Looking at a problem through the lens of impartiality is the only way to get a true understanding of it from all angles.”

Decision-Making

Once you’ve figured out where the problem is coming from and what solutions are, it’s time to decide on the best way to go forth. Decision-making skills help you determine what resources are available, what a feasible action plan entails, and what solution is likely to lead to success.

On a Resume

Employers looking for problem-solving skills might include the word “problem-solving” or other synonyms like “ critical thinking ” or “analytical skills” in the job description.

“I would add ‘buzzwords’ you can find from the job descriptions or LinkedIn endorsements section to filter into your resume to comply with the ATS,” Matthew Warzel, CPRW resume writer, advises. Warzel recommends including these skills on your resume but warns to “leave the soft skills as adjectives in the summary section. That is the only place soft skills should be mentioned.”

On the other hand, you can list hard skills separately in a skills section on your resume .

Forage Resume Writing Masterclass

Learn how to showcase your skills and craft an award-winning resume with this free masterclass from Forage.

Avg. Time: 5 to 6 hours

Skills you’ll build: Resume writing, professional brand, professional summary, narrative, transferable skills, industry keywords, illustrating your impact, standing out

In a Cover Letter or an Interview

Explaining your problem-solving skills in an interview can seem daunting. You’re required to expand on your process — how you identified a problem, analyzed potential solutions, and made a choice. As long as you can explain your approach, it’s okay if that solution didn’t come from a professional work experience.

“Young professionals shortchange themselves by thinking only paid-for solutions matter to employers,” Skalka says. “People at the genesis of their careers don’t have a wealth of professional experience to pull from, but they do have relevant experience to share.”

Aaron Case, career counselor and CPRW at Resume Genius, agrees and encourages early professionals to share this skill. “If you don’t have any relevant work experience yet, you can still highlight your problem-solving skills in your cover letter,” he says. “Just showcase examples of problems you solved while completing your degree, working at internships, or volunteering. You can even pull examples from completely unrelated part-time jobs, as long as you make it clear how your problem-solving ability transfers to your new line of work.”

Learn How to Identify Problems

Problem-solving doesn’t just require finding solutions to problems that are already there. It’s also about being proactive when something isn’t working as you hoped it would. Practice questioning and getting curious about processes and activities in your everyday life. What could you improve? What would you do if you had more resources for this process? If you had fewer? Challenge yourself to challenge the world around you.

Think Digitally

“Employers in the modern workplace value digital problem-solving skills, like being able to find a technology solution to a traditional issue,” Case says. “For example, when I first started working as a marketing writer, my department didn’t have the budget to hire a professional voice actor for marketing video voiceovers. But I found a perfect solution to the problem with an AI voiceover service that cost a fraction of the price of an actor.”

Being comfortable with new technology — even ones you haven’t used before — is a valuable skill in an increasingly hybrid and remote world. Don’t be afraid to research new and innovative technologies to help automate processes or find a more efficient technological solution.

Collaborate

Problem-solving isn’t done in a silo, and it shouldn’t be. Use your collaboration skills to gather multiple perspectives, help eliminate bias, and listen to alternative solutions. Ask others where they think the problem is coming from and what solutions would help them with your workflow. From there, try to compromise on a solution that can benefit everyone.

If we’ve learned anything from the past few years, it’s that the world of work is constantly changing — which means it’s crucial to know how to adapt . Be comfortable narrowing down a solution, then changing your direction when a colleague provides a new piece of information. Challenge yourself to get out of your comfort zone, whether with your personal routine or trying a new system at work.

Put Yourself in the Middle of Tough Moments

Just like adapting requires you to challenge your routine and tradition, good problem-solving requires you to put yourself in challenging situations — especially ones where you don’t have relevant experience or expertise to find a solution. Because you won’t know how to tackle the problem, you’ll learn new problem-solving skills and how to navigate new challenges. Ask your manager or a peer if you can help them work on a complicated problem, and be proactive about asking them questions along the way.

Career Aptitude Test

What careers are right for you based on your skills? Take this quiz to find out. It’s completely free — you’ll just need to sign up to get your results!

Step 1 of 3

Companies always need people to help them find solutions — especially proactive employees who have practical analytical skills and can collaborate to decide the best way to move forward. Whether or not you have experience solving problems in a professional workplace, illustrate your problem-solving skills by describing your research, analysis, and decision-making process — and make it clear that you’re the solution to the employer’s current problems. 

Image Credit: Christina Morillo / Pexels 

Related Posts

6 negotiation skills to level up your work life, how to build conflict resolution skills: case studies and examples, what is github uses and getting started, upskill with forage.

Build career skills recruiters are looking for.

Problem Redefinition

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 25 December 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Roni Reiter-Palmon 2 &
• Vignesh R. Murugavel 3  

58 Accesses

This entry examines the process of problem redefinition. Problem definition is discussed as it fits into the larger creative problem-solving process. Specifically, the distinctions between problem redefinition and problem definition are detailed. A formal definition of the problem redefinition process is formed from these qualifications. Theoretical and empirical works on redefining problems to produce creative solutions are examined to better understand the utility of the redefinition process. Literature from organizational science, social and cognitive psychology, and design thinking is reviewed to elucidatethe problem redefinition process. Both individual-level and group-level problem redefinition processes are considered. A brief discussion of research on goal change is provided to further describe how and why problem redefinition occurs. Finally, the role of the possible is discussed to capture the essence of problem redefinition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Creative Problem-Solving

Design Thinking: Problem Solving in the Diverse Workplace

Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.14 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Basadur, M., Pringle, P., Speranzini, G., & Bacot, M. (2000). Collaborative problem solving through creativity in problem definition: Expanding the pie. Creativity and Innovation Management, 9 (1), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00157 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 30 (2), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(82)90221-5 .

Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. The Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159333 .

Dewey, J. (1910). Educational essays . Blackie & Son.

Google Scholar  

Fürst, G., Ghisletta, P., & Lubart, T. (2012). The creative process in visual art: A longitudinal multivariate study. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (4), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.729999 .

Gaynes, R. (2017). The discovery of penicillin – New insights after more than 75 years of clinical use. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 23 (5), 849–853. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2305.161556 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gish, L., & Clausen, C. (2013). The framing of product ideas in the making: A case study of the development of an energy saving pump. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25 (9), 1085–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.832746 .

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence . McCraw-Hill.

Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 (2), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.212 .

Holyoak, K. J. (1984). Analogical thinking and human intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 2). Erlbaum.

Kelley, T., Littman, J., & Peters, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from Ideo, America’s leading design firm . London: Profile books.

Kernan, M. C., & Lord, R. G. (1990). Effects of valence, expectancies, and goal-performance discrepancies in single and multiple goal environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.194 .

Leonardi, P. M. (2011). Innovation blindness: Culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts. Organization Science, 22 (2), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0529 .

Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. The Academy of Management Review, 13 (1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258352 .

Lord, R. G., & Hanges, P. J. (1987). A control system model of organizational motivation: Theoretical development and applied implications. Behavioral Science, 32 (3), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830320302 .

Medeiros, K. E., Partlow, P. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2014). Not too much, not too little: The influence of constraints on creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8 (2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036210 .

Medeiros, K. E., Steele, L. M., Watts, L. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2018). Timing is everything: Examining the role of constraints throughout the creative process. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12 (4), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000148 .

Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4 , 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534380 .

Mumford, M., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 3–39). Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Mumford, M. D., Lonergan, D. C., & Scott, G. (2002). Evaluating creative ideas: Processes, standards, and context. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 22 (1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews20022213 .

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving . Prentice-Hall.

Reiter-Palmon, R. (2018). Creative cognition at the individual and team levels: What happens before and after idea generation. In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 184–202). Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Harms, M. (2018). Engagement in creativity processes is not linear: The effect of revision on creativity . Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Chicago.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Hullsiek, B. (2010). The role of creativity in JDM. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3 (4), 431–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01265.x .

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Paulus, P. (2020). Cognitive and social processes in team creativity. In M. D. Mumford & E. M. Todd (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizations (pp. 161–190). Routledge.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E. (2009). Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3 , 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014629 .

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem-solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9 (6), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350090605 .

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence, wisdom, and creativity: Three is better than one. Educational Psychologist, 21 (3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2103_2 .

Swait, J., Argo, J., & Li, L. (2018). Modeling simultaneous multiple goal pursuit and adaptation in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (3), 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0102 .

Toader, A. F., & Kessler, T. (2018). Team mental models, team goal orientations, and information elaboration, predicting team creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 30 (4), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1530912 .

Toader, A. F., Cantner, U., & Kessler, T. (2019). The effect of team mental models divergence on creative performance during situational changes. Creativity Research Journal, 31 (1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1577206 .

Wanous, J. P., Keon, T. L., & Latack, J. C. (1983). Expectancy theory and occupational/organizational choices: A review and test. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 32 (1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90140-X .

Weingart, L., Cronin, M., Houser, C., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. (2005). Functional diversity and conflict in cross-functional product development teams: Considering representational gaps and task characteristics. In L. Neider & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Understanding teams (pp. 89–100). IAP.

Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Cronin, M. A. (2008). Representational gaps, team integration and team creativity. Paper Presented at the Academy of Management 2008 Annual meeting: The questions we ask, AOM 2008 , Briarcliff Manor.

Wieber, F., Sezer, L. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2014). Asking “why” helps action control by goals but not plans. Motivation and Emotion, 38 (1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9364-3 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, USA

Roni Reiter-Palmon

University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, USA

Vignesh R. Murugavel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roni Reiter-Palmon .

Section Editor information

Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

Sergio Agnoli

Marconi Institute for Creativity, Sasso Marconi, Italy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Murugavel, V.R. (2022). Problem Redefinition. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_185-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_185-1

Received : 29 April 2021

Accepted : 20 November 2021

Published : 25 December 2021

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-98390-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-98390-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Are You Solving the Right Problem?

• Dwayne Spradlin

Most firms aren’t, and that undermines their innovation efforts.

Reprint: R1209F

The rigor with which a problem is defined is the most important factor in finding a good solution. Many organizations, however, are not proficient at articulating their problems and identifying which ones are crucial to their strategies.

They may even be trying to solve the wrong problems—missing opportunities and wasting resources in the process. The key is to ask the right questions.

The author describes a process that his firm, InnoCentive, has used to help clients define and articulate business, technical, social, and policy challenges and then present them to an online community of more than 250,000 solvers. The four-step process consists of asking a series of questions and using the answers to create a problem statement that will elicit novel ideas from an array of experts.

• Establish the need for a solution. What is the basic need? Who will benefit from a solution?
• Justify the need. Why should your organization attempt to solve this problem? Is it aligned with your strategy? If a solution is found, who will implement it?
• Contextualize the problem. What have you and others already tried? Are there internal and external constraints to implementing a solution?
• Write the problem statement. What requirements must a solution meet? What language should you use to describe the problem? How will you evaluate solutions and measure success?

EnterpriseWorks/VITA, a nonprofit organization, used this process to find a low-cost, lightweight, and convenient product that expands access to clean drinking water in the developing world.

“If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it,” Albert Einstein said.

• DS Dwayne Spradlin is the president and CEO of InnoCentive , an online marketplace that connects organizations with freelance problem solvers in a multitude of fields. He is a coauthor, with Alpheus Bingham, of The Open Innovation Marketplace: Creating Value in the Challenge Driven Enterprise (FT Press, 2011).

Partner Center

What Is Problem Solving?

You will often see beach clean-up drives being publicized in coastal cities. There are already dustbins available on the beaches,…

You will often see beach clean-up drives being publicized in coastal cities. There are already dustbins available on the beaches, so why do people need to organize these drives? It’s evident that despite advertising and posting anti-littering messages, some of us don’t follow the rules.

Temporary food stalls and shops make it even more difficult to keep the beaches clean. Since people can’t ask the shopkeepers to relocate or prevent every single person from littering, the clean-up drive is needed.  This is an ideal example of problem-solving psychology in humans. ( 230-fifth.com ) So, what is problem-solving? Let’s find out.

What Is Problem-Solving?

At its simplest, the meaning of problem-solving is the process of defining a problem, determining its cause, and implementing a solution. The definition of problem-solving is rooted in the fact that as humans, we exert control over our environment through solutions. We move forward in life when we solve problems and make decisions. 

We can better define the problem-solving process through a series of important steps.

Identify The Problem: 

This step isn’t as simple as it sounds. Most times, we mistakenly identify the consequences of a problem rather than the problem itself. It’s important that we’re careful to identify the actual problem and not just its symptoms. 

Define The Problem: 

Once the problem has been identified correctly, you should define it. This step can help clarify what needs to be addressed and for what purpose.

Form A Strategy: 

Develop a strategy to solve your problem. Defining an approach will provide direction and clarity on the next steps. 

Organize The Information:  

Organizing information systematically will help you determine whether something is missing. The more information you have, the easier it’ll become for you to arrive at a solution.  

Allocate Resources:  

We may not always be armed with the necessary resources to solve a problem. Before you commit to implementing a solution for a problem, you should determine the availability of different resources—money, time and other costs.

Track Progress: 

The true meaning of problem-solving is to work towards an objective. If you measure your progress, you can evaluate whether you’re on track. You could revise your strategies if you don’t notice the desired level of progress. 

Evaluate The Results:  

After you spot a solution, evaluate the results to determine whether it’s the best possible solution. For example, you can evaluate the success of a fitness routine after several weeks of exercise.

Meaning Of Problem-Solving Skill

Now that we’ve established the definition of problem-solving psychology in humans, let’s look at how we utilize our problem-solving skills.  These skills help you determine the source of a problem and how to effectively determine the solution. Problem-solving skills aren’t innate and can be mastered over time. Here are some important skills that are beneficial for finding solutions.

Communication

Communication is a critical skill when you have to work in teams.  If you and your colleagues have to work on a project together, you’ll have to collaborate with each other. In case of differences of opinion, you should be able to listen attentively and respond respectfully in order to successfully arrive at a solution.

As a problem-solver, you need to be able to research and identify underlying causes. You should never treat a problem lightly. In-depth study is imperative because often people identify only the symptoms and not the actual problem.

Once you have researched and identified the factors causing a problem, start working towards developing solutions. Your analytical skills can help you differentiate between effective and ineffective solutions.

Decision-Making

You’ll have to make a decision after you’ve identified the source and methods of solving a problem. If you’ve done your research and applied your analytical skills effectively, it’ll become easier for you to take a call or a decision.

Organizations really value decisive problem-solvers. Harappa Education’s   Defining Problems course will guide you on the path to developing a problem-solving mindset. Learn how to identify the different types of problems using the Types of Problems framework. Additionally, the SMART framework, which is a five-point tool, will teach you to create specific and actionable objectives to address problem statements and arrive at solutions. 

Explore topics & skills such as Problem Solving Skills , PICK Chart , How to Solve Problems & Barriers to Problem Solving from our Harappa Diaries blog section and develop your skills.