Presentación: una mirada desde los lineamientos

Before selecting their best Optimal and Personal solutions, participants had been asked to generate as many solutions as possible to each problem situation. Fluency o f solution generation was assessed by counting the total number o f solutions generated across all problem situations (Number o f Solutions), regardless of quality, since participants were not specifically asked only for good solutions at this stage. The mean scores for each group are shown in Figure 7.1.

A t-test o f the number o f solutions generated showed a significant difference between the groups with anterior and posterior lesions (t=2.31, df=23, p=.030). Comparison o f the anterior and control groups showed that the anterior participants produced fewer solutions (t=3.21, df=40, p=.003), whereas the posterior group did not differ significantly from the control group (t=0.21, df=33, p=.835). Table 7.5 shows the comparisons between the control group and the individual lesion groups.

Figure 7.1: Mean scores for total number of solutions generated for the control, anterior and posterior groups

P 40

control anterior posterior

group

In order to examine the quality of the solutions generated, each solution was rated for Problem Appreciation, Social Appropriateness and Effectiveness, to calculate Solution Quality scores as described above. The Solution Quality scores were added for all fluency solutions given, and divided by Number of Solutions, to derive an Average Solution Quality score per solution. This did not show any significant effects involving site of lesion (t=1.47, df=23, p=.156); nor was there a significant difference in Average Solution Quality between the combined lesion group and the control group (t=1.14, df=49, p=.259). The mean scores for each group are shown in Figure 7.2.

Table 7.5 Predicaments test: anterior group (A) versus control group (C); posterior group (P) versus C

A vs C

Test _P

P vs C

T est _P

Solution Generation

Num ber of Solutions t=3.21 .003** t=0.21 .835

Solution Quality F=36.81 .0001** F=8.20 .007** Problem Appreciation (0 ) t=2.34 .024 t=3.52 .001** Social A ppropriateness (0 ) t=2.64 .007** t=2.58 .014* E ffectiveness (0 ) t=3.18 .005** t=2.39 .023 Problem Appreciation (P) t=2.80 .008** t=1.38 .176 Social A ppropriateness (P) t=3.84 .0001** t=2.49 .018 Effectiveness (P) t=3.17 .004** t=1.05 .300 *p<.05 **p<.01

Figure 7.2: Mean scores for average quality of solutions for the control, anterior and posterior groups

control anterior posterior

7.1.3.2.4 Selection of optimal and personal solutions

For each problem situation, participants were asked to select an optimal solution from the perspective o f the main character, and then to give their own personal solution, and these were rated on Problem Appreciation, Social Appropriateness and Effectiveness, to give a combined Total Solution Quality score, as described above. Optimal and Personal Solution Quality scores were compared using ANOVA for the anterior and posterior groups, with one between-groups factor (group: anterior or posterior), and one within-groups factor (perspective: optimal or personal). Neither the effect o f group (F=0.72, df=l,23, p=.406), nor the effect of perspective (F=0.63, df=l,23, p=.435) were significant, although there was a significant group by perspective interaction (F=6.27, df=l,23, p=.020). Examination o f the mean scores showed that the anterior group gained slightly higher scores for optimal solutions compared with personal solutions, while the posterior group showed the reverse pattern. The two groups were compared individually with the control group. ANOVA showed that the anterior group gained poorer scores than the control group (F=36.81, df=l,40, p=.0001). The group by perspective interaction was not significant (F=0.03, df=l,40, p=.876), although perspective was significant (F=8.77, df=l,40, p=.005); examination o f the mean scores showed that both groups gained slightly higher scores for optimal compared with personal solutions. ANOVA also showed that the posterior group scored significantly lower than the control group (F=8.20, df=l,33, p=.007). There was no effect o f perspective (F=0.01, df=l,33, p=.939), although the group by perspective interaction approached significance (F=3.40, df=l,33, p=.074). The mean scores for the three groups are shown in Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.3: Mean scores for optimal and personal solution quality for the control, anterior and posterior groups

0) 1 0- 0 # ^ H H o p t i m a l so lu tio n q u ality I f b e r s o n a i so lu tio n q u a lity co n tro l a n te r io r p o s te r io r group

The anterior and posterior groups were also compared with the control group for the three submeasures, Problem Appreciation, Social Appropriateness and Effectiveness, for Optimal and Personal solutions. Using an adjusted significance level (.05/3= p<.0167) t-tests showed the anterior group to score significantly lower than the control group on five out of six of the measures, as shown in Table 7.5. The sixth measure. Problem Appreciation for Optimal solutions, approached significance (t=2.34, df=40, p=.024). The posterior group scored significantly lower than the control group on Problem Appreciation and Social Appropriateness for Optimal solutions as shown in Table 7.5. The differences between the posterior and control groups also approached significance for Optimal Effectiveness (t=2.39, df=33, p=.023) and Personal Social Appropriateness (t=2.49, df=33, p=.018), although the results for Personal Problem Appreciation and Effectiveness were not significant. The mean scores for the three groups for Optimal solutions are shown in Figure 7.4, and for Personal solutions in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.4 Mean optimal solution scores: control, anterior and posterior groups 16 C D 2 o O CO mm* group control anterior posterior Problem Appreciation Social Appropriate Effectiveness

Figure 7.5 Mean personal solution scores: control, anterior and posterior groups

16 14- 12^ 1 0- C D 2 o o CO 4 - 2- group I I a n te r io r I H p o s te r io r Problem Appreciation Social Appropriate Effectiveness