The Expansion of the Model of Mechanisms of Insight Problem Solving in the S. Ohlsson’s Representational Change Theory

The paper explores an option to expand the model of mechanisms of insight problem solving proposed by S. Ohlsson. The proposed mechanisms of insight problem solving — chunk decomposition and constraint relaxation — considered within the framework of high-level and low-level processes. Chunk decomposition described as low-level mechanism and constraint relaxation as high-level mechanism. We assume that difficulty of the different insight problems can be explained by high level chunk decomposition and low-level constraint relaxation. The paper describes two experiments dedicated to verify the assumption. The first experiment examines process of solving anagrams (with word) as high-level chunk decomposition. The main results of the experiment show the prospect of distinguishing the semantic chunk decomposition as insight problem solving mechanism. The second experiment use nine-dot insight problem to examine its solution process as relaxation of low-level (perceptual) constraints. Based on the results of the experiments, it can be considered possible to conclude that the expansion of S. Ohlsson’s model of mechanisms of insight problem solving allows to deem the solutions of various problems in a unified system.

1. Valueva E.A. Rol’ inkubacionnogo perioda v reshenii zadach //Psihologiya. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki. 2016. Vol.13. no.4. pp.789—800. DOI.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2016-4-789-800 (In Russ.).
2. Koffka K. Vospriyatie: vvedenie v geshtal’tteoriyu //Hrestomatiya po oshchushcheniyu i vospriyatiyu. Pod red. YU.B Gippenrejter i M.B Mihalevskoj. M.: Izd-vo MGU. 1975. P. 96. (In Russ.).
3. Chistopol’skaya A.V. i dr. Predstavlenie o vysokourovnevyh i nizkourovnevyh processah v kognitivnoj psihologii. Teoriya izmeneniya reprezentacii S. Olssona s pozicii urovnevogo podhoda // Vestnik Yaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. P.G. Demidova. Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki. 2019. no. 3. pp. 94—101. (In Russ.).
4. Bruno N., Pavani F. Perception: a multisensory perspective. — Oxford University Press, 2018.
5. Burnham C.A., Davis K.G. The nine-dot problem: Beyond perceptual organization //Psychonomic Science. 1969. Vol. 17. no. 6. P. 321—323. DOI.org/10.3758/BF03335259
6. Ekstrand B. R., Dominowski R. L. Solving words as anagrams: II. A clarification //Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1968. Vol.77. no. 4. P. 552—558. DOI.org/10.1037/h0026073
7. Ellis J.J., Reingold E.M. The Einstellung effect in anagram problem solving: evidence from eye movements // Frontiers in psychology. 2014. no.5. P.679. DOI.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00679
8. Kershaw T. C., Ohlsson S. Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: the case of the nine-dot problem // Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition. 2004. Vol. 30. no 1. P. 3—13. DOI. org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.3
9. Knoblich G., Ohlsson S., Raney G. E. An eye movement study of insight problem solving //Memory & cognition. 2001. Vol. 29. no. 7. P. 1000—1009. DOI.org/10.3758/BF03195762
10. Knoblich G. et al. Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving //Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition. 1999. Vol. 25. no. 6. P. 1534—1555. DOI. org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1534
11. Kounios J. et al. The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity //Neuropsychologia. 2008. Vol. 46. no. 1. P. 281—291. DOI.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.013
12. MacGregor J.N., Ormerod T.C., Chronicle E.P. Information processing and insight: a process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems //Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2001. Vol. 27. no. 1. P. 176. DOI.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.176
13. Mayzner M.S., Tresselt M. E. Solving words as anagrams: An issue re-examined //Psychonomic Science. 1965. Vol. 3. no. 1—12. P. 363—364. DOI.org/10.3758/BF03343181
14. Metcalfe J. Premonitions of insight predict impending error //Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition. 1986. Vol. 12. no. 4. P. 623—636. DOI.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.4.623
15. Novick L. R., Sherman S.J. On the nature of insight solutions: Evidence from skill differences in anagram solution //The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. 2003. Vol. 56. no. 2. P. 351—382. DOI.org/10.1080/02724980244000288
16. Ohlsson S. Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena //Advances in the psychology of thinking. 1992. Vol. 1. P. 1—44.
17. Topolinski S., Reber R. Gaining insight into the «Aha» experience //Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2010. Vol. 19. no. 6. P. 402—405.DOI.org/10.1177/0963721410388803
18. Weisberg R.W., Alba J.W. An examination of the alleged role of« fixation» in the solution of several «insight» problems //Journal of experimental psychology: general. 1981. Vol. 110. no. 2. P. 169. DOI. org/10.1037/0096-3445.110.2.169