Studying the effect of mental sets in solving anagram


Departmet of psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran


Introduction: Mental sets are clues which are already coded and stored in memory, and retrieved when needed. The present study investigated the role of mental sets in solving anagram problems.Methods: The design of this study is an experimental with repeated measurement design. The participants were 20 MA students and graduates chosen through voluntary sampling. Each of them were required to undertake four different varieties of measurement by anagram cards; names (people/country), sets (with/without) as the experimental instrument. Research data were analyzed through repeated measurements ANOVA test.Results: There was significant discrepancy between names of people and names of countries with and without set (p < 0.05). This was while, there was no significant difference between names of people and names of countries with set and names of people and names of countries without set.Conclusion: The presence of mental sets and clues facilitates the solving of anagrams. This readiness and clues should be presented in the coding stage in order for them to be remembered in the retrieval stage.


  1. Wiggins JG. Some relationships between stimulus structure and ambiguity in the solution of anagrams. J Clin Psychol. 1956;12(4):332-7.
  2. Mayer RE. Learning and instruction: Prentice Hall; 2003,Frensch PA, Funke J. Complex problem solving: The European perspective: Psychology Press; 2014.
  3. Wüstenberg S, Greiff S, Molnar G, Funke J. Cross-national gender differences in complex problem solving and their determinants. Learn Indiv Diff. 2014;29:18-29.
  4. Novick LR, Bassok M. Problem solving. In K.J. Holyoak & R.G.Morrison(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (ch.14,pp.321-349). New York, Cambridge University Press; 2005.
  5. D'Zurilla TJ, Nezu AM. Problem-solving therapy: A positive approach to clinical intervention: Springer New York; 2007.
  6. Brown AL. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J learning Sci. 1992;2(2):141-78.
  7. Alexander PA, Graham S, Harris KR. A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educ Psychol Rev. 1998;10(2):129-54.
  8. Kormi-Nour R. Psychology of memory and learning: A cognitive approach. A textbook for psychology students. Tehran: SAMT Publication; 2004.[Persian]
  9. Alaghehbandha N. Effectiveness of subjective readiness in solving of verbal problems [Dissertation]. Tehran: Alzahra University; 2000.[Persian]
  10. Thompson RF, Madigan SA. Memory: the key to consciousness: Princeton University Press; 2013.
  11. Wiley J, Jarosz AF. 6 How Working Memory Capacity Affects Problem Solving. Psychol Learning Motivation-Advances Res Theory. 2012;56:185.
  12. Cushen PJ, Wiley J. Cues to solution, restructuring patterns, and reports of insight in creative problem solving. Consciousness Cogn. 2012;21(3):1166-75.
  13. Ash IK, Cushen PJ, Wiley J. Obstacles in investigating the role of restructuring in insightful problem solving. J Problem Solving. 2009;2(2):3.
  14. Ellis JJ, Glaholt MG, Reingold EM. Eye movements reveal solution knowledge prior to insight. Consciousness Cogn. 2011;20(3):768-76.
  15. Botta F, Lupiañez J. Spatial distribution of attentional bias in visuo-spatial working memory following multiple cues. Acta Psychol. 2014;150:1-13.
  16. Carrasco M, McElree B. Covert attention accelerates the rate of visual information processing. Proceedings National Academ Sci. 2001;98(9):5363-67.
  17. Chica AB, Charras P, Lupiañez J. Endogenous attention and illusory line motion depend on task set. Vision Res. 2008;48(21):2251-59.
  18. Chica AB, Lasaponara S, Chanes L, Valero-Cabre A, Doricchi F, Lupiañez J, et al. Spatial attention and conscious perception: the role of endogenous and exogenous orienting. Attention Perception Psychophysics. 2011;73(4):1065-81.
  19. Funes MJ, Lupiañez J, Milliken B. Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm. J Exper Psychol: Hum Perception Perform. 2007;33(2):348.
  20. Kormi-Nouri R, Nilsson L-G. Negative cueing effects with weak and strong intralist cues. Eur J Cogn Psychol. 1999;11(2):199-218.
  21. Lupianez J, Ruz M, Funes MJ, Milliken B. The manifestation of attentional capture: facilitation or IOR depending on task demands. Psychol Res. 2007;71(1):77-91.
  22. Lupiañez J, Martin-Arevalo E, Chica AB. Is Inhibition of Return due to attentional disengagement or to a detection cost? The Detection Cost Theory of IOR. Psicologica: Int J Methodology Exper Psychol. 2013;34(2):221-52.
  23. Eysenck MW. Cognitive psychology: A student's handbook: Taylor & Francis; 2000.