“Lochhausen” ( German: Lohhausen ) - a psychological experiment to study the solution of complex problems , conducted in 1983 by the German psychologist Dietrich Dörner [1] . As part of the experiment, a virtual city of Lochhausen was simulated, which was controlled by subjects. The computer program developed for the experiment is considered one of the forerunners of strategic games in the genre of urban planning simulator [2] [3] .
This experiment by D. Dörner is the most famous, since it was in it that the effects that were encountered in the process of solving complex problems were first identified [4] [5] .
Content
Description of Lochhausen
Lochhausen is a city that does not exist in reality, in which approximately 3,700 people live. It is located somewhere in the Middle German mountains. The main industrial facility of Lochhausen is a watch factory. The city also has institutions such as a bank, shops, small hotels, etc.
Experiment Description
Lochhausen was simulated using a computer. It is a dynamic model designed to study the characteristics of thinking and planning in subjects. The experiment was attended by 48 subjects. Each subject was to act as the burgomaster of Lochhausen, who was selected for a ten-year term and had great powers. The subjects were given greater freedom of action in order to contribute to the most diverse decisions and to identify behavioral features that are not manifested in ordinary conditions.
Experiment Results
According to the results of the experiment, one part of the subjects coped with their task quite successfully, and the other part - not so well. The success of the subjects was evaluated on the basis of the satisfaction indicator of city residents. This indicator was calculated separately for population groups. Separate social indicators: standard of living, situation on the labor market, housing situation, crime rate, etc., were converted into numbers, and then summed up taking into account the comparative importance of indicators.
As a result, there were clear differences in the characteristics of thinking and planning between the “good” and “bad” subjects. The “good” subjects made more decisions than the “bad” ones. When calculating how many “intentions”, “intentions” and “goals” were behind each decision, the “good” subjects for one intention had significantly more decisions. It was also noted that subjects who had established themselves as good managers could quickly identify the most acute problems in the city that needed to be addressed immediately.
A detailed analysis of the protocols, in which “thinking out loud” was recorded, revealed even more significant differences between successful and unsuccessful subjects. Both groups equally often put forward various hypotheses , but the “good” subjects tested their hypotheses using questions, and the “bad” ones did not.
It also turned out that more successful participants in the experiment often asked the question “why?”, And less successful ones asked the question “is there?”. The “good” subjects more often looked for causal relationships, while the “bad” ones did not seek to connect events with each other. In addition, the “bad” burgomaster, trying to solve the problem and encountering obstacles in their path, often left it and moved on to the next. Insufficiently successful participants in the experiment more often than their more successful colleagues distracted from their current affairs.
Differences between “good” and “bad” subjects in the degree of self-criticism were also revealed. The former often expressed critical opinions about their actions and tried to change their actions; the latter, on the contrary, did not try to change anything in their actions. The “bad” subjects also often shifted responsibility for making difficult decisions to someone else.
Conclusions
Dietrich Dörner concludes that the success of the subjects depends on the characteristics of their thinking. In particular, successful subjects act more comprehensively. They are able to take into account in their decisions various aspects of a holistic system . In complex network systems, this behavior is more productive than an isolated consideration of individual aspects.
The author of the experiment also associates various behaviors of subjects with their ability to endure uncertainty . The unsatisfactory results of some of the subjects can be explained by the tendency of their thinking not to notice their helplessness in a difficult situation and to leave it in certainty and self-confidence.
Notes
- ↑ Dörner D., Kreuzig HW, Reither F., Stäudel T. Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. "- Huber: Bern 1983, ISBN 3-456-81216-7
- ↑ Poddyakov A. Solving complex problems in PISA-2012 and PISA-2015: interaction with complex reality . // Educational policy. No. 6 (62) 2012.S. 34-53.
- ↑ Riegler A. “The end of science”: Can we overcome cognitive limitations? // Evolution and Cognition. 1998. V. 4 (1). P. 37-50.
- ↑ Eliseenko A.S., Zverev D.A. Technology of simulation training for the development of systemic thinking and the development of management teams . // "Organizational Psychology." 2013.V. 3. No. 3. S. 97-112.
- ↑ A. Eliseenko. Subjective uncertainty in solving complex problems . // “Psychology. Historical and critical reviews and modern research ”, No. 2-3, 2012. P. 78-102.
Links
- Dörner D. The Logic of Failure. - M .: Sense, 1997. ISBN 5-89357-024-3