P~ycho~ogica~ Reporis, 1968, 23, 391-394. @ Southern Universities Press 1968 EXPERIMENTAL SEPARATION OF FUNCTION AND TASK IN FUNCTIONAL FIXEDNESS PROBLEMS1 LEROY H. PELTON AND NICHOLAS J. ESPOSITO Statn Uniuenity of New York a1 Albany Sztnrmary.-Flavcll, Cooper, and Loiselle (1958) found that functional fix- edness (FF) varied inversely with the number of varied pre-problem experiences with an object. Although the decrease in FF was attributed to the increase in the number of experienced functions, task varied simultaneously with function. The present study attempted to separate these two factors by varying task only. It was hypothesized that such variation would increase FF, as measured by number of solutions and solution 1a:enq time, above that found when both task and func- tion remain constant in the pre-problem experience. This hypothesis was not supported. An object may have an ordinary function which can be utilized in a variety of tasks. For example, a matchbox ordinarily has the function of containing things. It might contain matches, money, tacks, etc., or in other words, it can be used for a variety of tasks. The box can also be utilized as a platform, but in this usage its function has changed. It is no longer used in its "conta~n~ng" function but in its "platform" function. As another example, a hammer ordi- narily has the function of driving things. In this capacity it can be used to drive nails into wood, to knock pegs out of a child's peg-board, to ring a bell by bang- ing it, etc. In this function it can be used in a variety of tasks. The hammer can also be used as a pendulum weight, but in this capacity its function has changed. It is no longer used in its "driving, knocking" function, but in its "weight" func- tion. Duncker ( 1945 ) , the first to investigate functional fixedness ( FF) , found that prior use of an object In accordance with its normal function would inhibit its use for a different, unus~al function. For example, two groups were given a problem which could only be solved by using a pliers as one support for a board (test problem). One grou? used the pliers to remove nails (normal use) prior to this problem, while the second group was given the problem without prior use of the pliers within the experimental setting. In our terms, the first group had pre-problem experienc: with one function and task involving the pliers, while the second group did not. FF was found to be greater for the first group, as indicated by fewer soluti~ns. Flavell, Cooper, and Loiselle ( 1958), using the two-object-choice technique of measuring FF,' found that FF decreases as the number of novel pre-problem experiences with an obiecr increase. They attributed the decrease to the number 'The authors wish to thank Abraham S. Luchins for his helpful suggestions. 'They measured FF by noting which of two objects, either of which could successEully be used to solve the test problem, was actually chosen by S in his solution. FF would be demonstrated if Ss tended to us: the object noi used in the pre-problem experience.