Top

17-04-2024 | Research

The lack of Aha! experience can be dependent on the problem difficulty

Auteurs: Gaye Özen-Akın, Sevtap Cinan

Abstract

Previous research on how problem-difficulty affects solution-types of insight-problems has yielded contradictory findings. Thus, we aimed to examine the impact of problem-difficulty on solution-types in both inter- and intra-problem-difficulty contexts. For this, we employed the original 8-coin, and 9-dot problems and four hinted-versions of those that were manipulated by using hints-to-remove-sources-of-difficulty to alter their difficulty level. Those manipulations were executed based on the assumptions of constraint-relaxation and chunk-decomposition as posited by representational change theory. The study involved a total of 165 participants who were tested in five groups (33 per se), with each group receiving an original or hinted problem. Following their correct solutions, problem-solvers classified their solution-types (insight or non-insight solutions) by whether they had an Aha!-experience during the solution. Across all groups, 56.1% of correctly solved insight problems were solved with Aha!-experience, based on participants' self-reports, implying that correct solutions should not be equated with insight. Subsequently, the solution-type rates were compared for both original problems (inter-problem-difficulty) and hinted versions of those at each difficulty level (intra-problem-difficulty). Inter-problem-difficulty comparisons demonstrated that the easier 8-coin problem was more likely to be solved with insight than the harder 9-dot problem. In contrast, intra-problem-difficulty comparisons revealed that harder problems were more likely to be solved with insight. These findings suggest that problem-difficulty should be considered in future studies of insight. Finally, separate analyses on the predictive values of the cognitive-affective-dimensions on solution-types revealed that, after adjusting for problem-difficulty, problem-solvers with higher suddenness scores in both problems exhibited a significantly higher probability of generating insight solutions.

Ammalainen, A., & Moroshkina, N. (2021). The effect of true and false unreportable hints on anagram problem solving, restructuring, and the Aha!-experience. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 33(6–7), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1844722CrossRef

Beeman, M. J., & Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems. Memory & Cognition, 28(7), 1231–1241.CrossRef

Bowden, E. M. (1997). The effect of reportable and unreportable hints on anagram solution and the Aha! experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 6(4), 545–573. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1997.0325CrossRefPubMed

Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9(6), 435–440.CrossRef

Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 730–737.CrossRef

Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2020). Decision-making competence: More than intelligence? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420901592CrossRef

Chein, J. M., Weisberg, R. W., Streeter, N. L., & Kwok, S. (2010). Working memory and insight in the nine-dot problem. Memory & Cognition, 38, 883–892.CrossRef

Chronicle, E. P., Ormerod, T. C., & MacGregor, J. N. (2001). When insight just won’t come: The failure of visual cues in the nine-dot problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a: Human Experimental Psychology, 54(3), 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755996CrossRef

Cinan, S., Özen, G., & Hampshire, A. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis on separability of planning and insight constructs. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 7–23.CrossRef

Cushen, P. J., & Wiley, J. (2012). Cues to solution, restructuring patterns, and reports of insight in creative problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1166–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.03.013CrossRefPubMed

Dağ, I. (1991). Belirti Tarama Listesi (SCL-90-R)’nin üniversite öğrencileri için güvenirliği ve geçerliği [Reliability and validity of the Symptom Check List (SCL-90-R) for university students]. In Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi (Vol. 2, pp. 5–12).

Danek, A. H., & Wiley, J. (2017). What about false insights? Deconstructing the Aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Danek, A. H., Williams, J., & Wiley, J. (2018). Closing the gap: connecting sudden representational change to the subjective Aha! experience in insightful problem solving. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0977-8CrossRefPubMed

Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2013). Aha! experiences leave a mark: Facilitated recall of insight solutions. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77(5), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0454-8CrossRefPubMed

Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2014). It’s a kind of magic-what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01408CrossRef

Danek, A. H., Wiley, J., & Öllinger, M. (2016). Solving classical insight problems without aha! experience: 9 Dot, 8 Coin, and matchstick arithmetic problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 9(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1183CrossRef

Davidson, J. E. (1995). The suddenness of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 125–155). The MIT Press.

Deragotis, L. R., & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: A study in construct validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 981–989.CrossRef

Dudley, R., Taylor, P., Wickham, S., & Hutton, P. (2016). Psychosis, delusions and the “Jumping to Conclusions” reasoning bias: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(3), 652–665. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbv150CrossRefPubMed

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599CrossRef

Duncker, K. (1926). A qualitative (experimental and theoretical) study of productive thinking (solving of comprehensible problems). Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 33(4), 642–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1926.10533052CrossRef

Durso, F. T., Rea, C. B., & Dayton, T. (1994). Graph-theoretic confirmation of restructuring during insight. Psychological Science, 5(2), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9639.1993.tb00256.xCrossRef

Ellis, J. J., Glaholt, M. G., & Reingold, E. M. (2011). Eye movements reveal solution knowledge prior to insight. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.007CrossRefPubMed

Fear, C. F., & Healy, D. (1997). Probabilistic reasoning in obsessive-compulsive and delusional disorders. Psychological Medicine, 27(1), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291796004175CrossRefPubMed

Fedor, A., Szathmáry, E., & Öllinger, M. (2015). Problem solving stages in the five square problem. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(August), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01050CrossRef

Fleck, J. I., & Weisberg, R. W. (2004). The use of verbal protocols as data: An analysis of insight in the candle problem. Memory & Cognition, 32, 990–1006.CrossRef

Fleck, J. I., & Weisberg, R. W. (2013). Insight versus analysis: Evidence for diverse methods in problem solving. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 436–463.CrossRef

Freeman, D., Pugh, K., & Garety, P. (2008). Jumping to conclusions and paranoid ideation in the general population. Schizophrenia Research, 102(1–3), 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2008.03.020CrossRefPubMed

Gilhooly, K. J., & Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(3), 279–302.CrossRef

Goldberg, E., Harner, R., Lovell, M., Podell, K., & Riggio, S. (1994). Cognitive bias, functional cortical geometry, and the frontal lobes: Laterality, sex, and handedness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(3), 276–296. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1994.6.3.276CrossRefPubMed

Hedne, M. R., Norman, E., & Metcalfe, J. (2016). Intuitive feelings of warmth and confidence in insight and noninsight problem solving of magic tricks. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01314CrossRef

Jones, G. (2003). Testing two cognitive theories of insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 29(5), 1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.1017CrossRefPubMed

Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), e97. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kershaw, T. C. (2004). Key actions in insight problems: Further evidence for the importance of non-dot turns in the nine-dot problem. In Proceedings of the 26h Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 678–683). http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/cogsci2004/papers/paper156.pdf

Kershaw, T. C., & Ohlsson, S. (2004). Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: The case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 30(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.3CrossRefPubMed

Kizilirmak, J. M., Serger, V., Kehl, J., Öllinger, M., Folta-Schoofs, K., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2018). Feelings-of-warmth increase more abruptly for verbal riddles solved with in contrast to without Aha! experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(9), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01404CrossRef

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25(6), 1534–1555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1534CrossRef

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 29(7), 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195762CrossRefPubMed

Koğar, H. (2019). Belirti Tarama Listesi’nin (SCL-90) geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması: Mokken ölçekleme analizleri [The validity and reliability study of the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90): Mokken scale analysis]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma Ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 9(54), 689–705.

Köhler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. Routledge.

Köhler, W. (1959). Gestalt psychology today. American Psychologist, 14, 427–434.CrossRef

Kounios, J., Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., Bowden, E. M., & Jung-beeman, M. (2008). The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.013CrossRefPubMed

Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2009). The Aha! moment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01638.xCrossRef

Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 71–93.CrossRefPubMed

Laukkonen, R. E., Ingledew, D. J., Grimmer, H. J., Schooler, J. W., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Getting a grip on insight: Real-time and embodied Aha experiences predict correct solutions. Cognition and Emotion, 35(5), 918–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1908230CrossRefPubMed

Löckenhoff, C. E. (2018). Aging and decision-making: A conceptual framework for future research—A mini-review. Gerontology, 64(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1159/000485247CrossRefPubMed

MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., & Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information processing and insight: A process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(1), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.176CrossRefPubMed

Maier, N. R. F. (1930). Reasoning in humans. I. On direction. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10(2), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073232CrossRef

Maier, N. R. F. (1940). The behavior mechanisms concerned with problem solving. Psychological Review, 47(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058466CrossRef

Mathes, B., Khalaidovski, K., Wienke, A. S., Schmiedt-Fehr, C., & Basar-Eroglu, C. (2016). Maturation of the P3 and concurrent oscillatory processes during adolescence. Clinical Neurophysiology, 127(7), 2599–2609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2016.04.019CrossRefPubMed

Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197722CrossRefPubMed

Moroshkina, N. V., Savina, A. I., Ammalainen, A. V., Gershkovich, V. A., Zverev, I. V., & Lvova, O. V. (2022). How difficult was it? Metacognitive judgments about problems and their solutions after the Aha moment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(June), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911904CrossRef

Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. Keane & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1–44). Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. In Science & Education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9449-5CrossRef

Öllinger, M., Jones, G., Faber, A. H., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Cognitive mechanisms of insight: The role of heuristics and representational change in solving the eight-coin problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029194CrossRefPubMed

Öllinger, M., Jones, G., & Knoblich, G. (2014). The dynamics of search, impasse, and representational change provide a coherent explanation of difficulty in the nine-dot problem. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78(2), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0494-8CrossRefPubMed

Ormerod, T. C., Fioratou, E., Chronicle, E. P., & MacGregor, J. N. (2006). The remnants of insight. In 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1893–1898).

Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N., & Chronicle, E. P. (2002). Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28(4), 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.791CrossRefPubMed

Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Kounios, J., Bowden, E., & Beeman, M. (2016). Insight solutions are correct more often than analytic solutions. Thinking and Reasoning, 22(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1141798CrossRefPubMed

Sastre-Buades, A., Ochoa, S., Lorente-Rovira, E., Barajas, A., Grasa, E., Sergio, S., Metacognition, S., Group, S., Barrig, M. L., Sanitari, P., & Joan, S. (2021). Jumping to conclusions and suicidal behavior in depression and psychosis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 137, 514–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.03.024CrossRefPubMed

Savinova, A., & Korovkin, S. (2022). Surprise! Why insightful solution is pleasurable. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040098CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Spiridonov, V., Loginov, N., & Ardislamov, V. (2021). Dissociation between the subjective experience of insight and performance in the CRA paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 33(6–7), 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1900198CrossRef

Strickland, T., Wiley, J., & Ohlsson, S. (2022). Hints and the Aha-accuracy effect in insight problem solving. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science, 44, 44.

Stuyck, H., Aben, B., Cleeremans, A., & Van den Bussche, E. (2021). The Aha! moment: Is insight a different form of problem solving? Consciousness and Cognition, 90, 103055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103055CrossRefPubMed

Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21057CrossRefPubMed

Threadgold, E., Marsh, J. E., & Ball, L. J. (2018). Normative data for 84 UK English rebus puzzles. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02513CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Topolinski, S., & Reber, R. (2010). Gaining insight into the “Aha” experience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 402–405.CrossRef

Unity Technologies. (n.d.). Unity. Unity. Retrieved 1 Dec 2020, from https://unity.com/

Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., & Cropper, S. J. (2016). Insight is not in the problem: Investigating insight in problem solving across task types. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01424CrossRef

Webb, M. E., Cropper, S. J., & Little, D. R. (2019). “Aha!” is stronger when preceded by a “huh?”: Presentation of a solution affects ratings of aha experience conditional on accuracy. Thinking and Reasoning, 25(3), 324–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1523807CrossRef

Weisberg, R. W., & Alba, J. W. (1981). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.110.2.169CrossRef

Wertheimer, M. (2020). Productive thinking. In V. Sarris, (Ed.), Springer Nature. (Original work published 1945)

Titel: The lack of Aha! experience can be dependent on the problem difficulty
Auteurs: Gaye Özen-Akın
Sevtap Cinan
Publicatiedatum: 17-04-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01960-x

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen