Methods 42 (2007) 58–67 www.elsevier.com/locate/ymeth 1046-2023/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.006 Methodologies for examining problem solving success and failure  Marci S. DeCaro a , Mareike Wieth b , Sian L. Beilock c,¤ a Department of Psychology, Miami University, USA b Department of Psychology, Albion College, USA c Department of Psychology, 5848 South University Avenue, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA Accepted 11 December 2006 Abstract When designing research to examine the variables underlying creative thinking and problem solving success, one must not only con- sider (a) the demands of the task being performed, but (b) the characteristics of the individual performing the task and (c) the constraints of the skill execution environment. In the current paper we describe methodologies that allow one to eVectively study creative thinking by capturing interactions among the individual, task, and problem solving situation. In doing so, we demonstrate that the relation between executive functioning and problem solving success is not always as straightforward as one might initially believe.  2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Working memory; Performance; Pressure; Individual diVerences; Problem solving; Creativity; Short term memory; Stress; Math 1. Introduction What determines successful performance on problem solving tasks ranging from insightful discovery to mathe- matical computation? In the current paper we explore methodologies used to investigate creativity in the problem solving domain—methodologies that take into account how individual diVerences in the performer, variations in the performance situation, and the demands of the task being performed carry implications for skill success and failure. By considering factors associated with the task, the performer, and the skill execution environment, we demon- strate that the relation between executive functioning and creative problem solving is not always as straightforward as one might initially believe. Creativity has been broadly deWned as the ability to pro- duce original and appropriate problem solutions [1]. One speciWc way researchers have conceptualized creative think- ing in the problem solving domain is in terms of cognitive Xexibility. By Xexibility we mean the ability to test multiple hypotheses or integrate numerous ideas, while Wltering out unsuitable solutions, in order to arrive at an appropriate problem outcome [2]. Flexibility has also been conceptual- ized in terms of the ability to approach a problem in multi- ple ways, to develop new problem representations [3,4], and to come up with problem solving strategies that circumvent the impact of one’s previous experience or tendency to solve a problem in a particular way [5]. Apparent in the above, multifacited, description of Xexi- bility is the notion that creativity can be manifest in diVer- ent types of problems in diVerent ways. In the current paper we focus on two classes of problem solving tasks (well- structured and ill-structured problems [1]) thought to diVer in the type of cognitive Xexibility on which creative solu- tions depend, as a means to demonstrate that successful problem solving performance is a conXuence of the individ- ual, task, and performance environment. Well-structured problems have clear initial or beginning states and clear goal states and are thus said to consist of a structured problem space [1]. Although not all well- structured problems are considered to be examples of cre- ative problem solving, there are numerous examples of well-structured tasks that depend on the selection of one  This research was supported by IES Grant R305H050004 and NSF Grant BCS-0601148 to Sian Beilock. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: beilock@uchicago.edu (S.L. Beilock).