The Influence of Experimental Conditions on the Subjective Assessment of Insightful Solution

248

Abstract

This work is devoted to situational factors of experimental research influence on the insight assessment of problem solving. We considered such factors as the solution strategy (insightful, step-by-step), the form of problem presentation (visual, verbal), the solution independence (solution found by the participant or presented by the experimenter) and the solution speed (fast, slow). Understanding the impact of these factors on the insight assessment can contribute to both improving research practice and developing a unified theoretical model of insight and insightful solution. The studies included in this paper were carried out in various research approaches, with different materials, by different experimenters and under different experimental conditions. Danek and Wiley’s questionnaire was used for the insight assessment in all studies. According to the results, all the above situational factors have a significant impact on the differentiated subjective assessment of insightful solutions.

General Information

Keywords: insight, problem solving, insightful solution, Aha! experience, subjective ratings

Journal rubric: Cognitive Psychology

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2023160102

Funding. This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project number 20-78-00048, https://rscf.ru/en/project/20-78-00048/.

Received: 07.04.2022

Accepted:

For citation: Lazareva N.Yu., Savinova A.D., Chistopolskaya A.V. The Influence of Experimental Conditions on the Subjective Assessment of Insightful Solution. Eksperimental'naâ psihologiâ = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2023. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 23–42. DOI: 10.17759/exppsy.2023160102. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

  1. Vladimirov I.Yu., Chistopol'skaya A.V. Analiz gnosticheskih dejstvij s pomoshch'yu tekhnologii registracii dvizheniya glaz kak metod izucheniya processa insajtnogo resheniya. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psihologiya [Cultural-Historical Psychology]. 2016. 12. № 1. P. 24—34. DOI:10.17759/chp.2016120103 (In Russ.).
  2. Lazareva N.Yu., Vladimirov I.Yu. Vliyanie fiksirovannosti na formirovanie nevernoj reprezentacii zadachi i vozniknovenie insajtnogo resheniya. Uchenye zapiski Rossijskogo gosudarstvennogo social'nogo universiteta [Scientific Notes of Russian State Social University]. 2019. 18. № 4. P. 22-30. DOI:10.17922/2071-5323-2019-18-4-22-30 (In Russ.).
  3. Lapteva E.M. Dvizheniya glaz kak indikator znaniya otveta pri reshenii anagram. Eksperimental'naya psihologiya [Experimental Psychology]. 2016. 9. № 3. P. 41—53. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2016090304 (In Russ.).
  4. Luneva A.R., Korovkin S.Yu. Issledovanie roli mezhpolusharnogo vzaimodejstviya v reshenii zadach: povedencheskie i fiziologicheskie dannye. Eksperimental'naya psihologiya [Experimental Psychology]. 2019. 12. № 2. P. 35—46. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2019120203 (In Russ.).
  5. Markina P.N., Makarov I.N., Vladimirov I.Yu. Osobennosti pererabotki informacii na stadii tupika pri reshenii insajtnoj zadachi. Teoreticheskaya i eksperimental'naya psihologiya [Theoretical and experimental psychology]. 2018. 11. № 2. P. 34—43. (In Russ.).
  6. Medyncev A.A. Vliyanie implicitnoj podskazki na avtomaticheskie processy obrabotki informacii v zadache na reshenie anagram. Eksperimental'naya psihologiya [Experimental Psychology]. 2017. 10. № 1. P. 23-37. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2017100103 (In Russ.).
  7. Moroshkina N.V., Ammalajnen A.V. Ot insajta k Aga!-perezhivaniyu: novaya paradigma v issledovaniyah resheniya zadach. Sibirskij psihologicheskij zhurnal [Siberian journal of psychology]. 2021. № 79. P. 48—73. DOI:10.17223/17267080/79/4 (In Russ.).
  8. Chistopol'skaya A.V., Savinova A.D., Lazareva N.Yu. Sbor fenomenologii insajtnogo resheniya s pomoshch'yu metoda analiza kejsov. Psihologiya — nauka budushchego: Materialy IX Mezhdunarodnoj konferencii molodyh uchenyh «Psihologiya — nauka budushchego», 18—19 noyabrya 2021 g., Moskva / Otv. red. E.A. Sergienko, N.E. Harlamenkova. M.: Izd-vo «Institut psihologii RAN», 2021a. P. 374—378. (In Russ.).
  9. Chistopol'skaya A.V., Savinova A.D., Lazareva N.Yu. Eksplikaciya kriteriev insajta i obzor metodov ih izmereniya. Psihologiya. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki [ Journal of Higher School of Economics]. 2021b. Vol. 18. № 4. P. 907—929. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2021-4-907-929 (In Russ.).
  10. Chistopol'skaya A.V., Shumilov T.V., Savinova A.D., Lazareva N.Yu. Formirovanie u reshatelya predstavleniya ob insajtnom reshenii zadach na osnove obuchayushchego video. Psihologiya poznaniya: rechevaya oposredovannost' i kategorizaciya v sovremennoj kognitivnoj nauke: materialy Vserossijskoj nauchnoj konferencii. YarGU, 10—11 dekabrya 2021 g. / Otv. red. I.Yu. Vladimirov, S.Yu. Korovkin. Yaroslavl': Filigran', 2022. P. 148—153. (In Russ.).
  11. Bilalić M., Graf M., Vaci N., Danek A.H. When the solution is on the doorstep: Better solving performance, but diminished Aha! experience for chess experts on the mutilated checkerboard problem // Cognitive science. 2019. Vol. 43. № P. e12771. DOI:10.1111/cogs.12771
  12. Birch H.G., Rabinowitz H.S. The negative effect of previous experience on productive thinking // Journal of experimental psychology. 1951. Vol. 41. № P. 121—125. DOI:10.1037/h0062635
  13. Bowden E.M., Jung-Beeman M. Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems // Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers. 2003. Vol. 35. № P. 634—639. DOI:10.3758/BF03195543
  14. Bowden E.M., Jung-Beeman M., Fleck J., Kounios J. New approaches to demystifying insight // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2005. Vol. 9. № P. 322—328. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.012
  15. Cranford E.A., Moss J. Is insight always the same? A protocol analysis of insight in compound remote associate problems // The Journal of Problem Solving. 2012. Vol. 4. № 2. P. 8. DOI:10.7771/1932-6246.1129
  16. Danek A.H., Fraps T., von Müller A., Grothe B., Öllinger M. Aha! experiences leave a mark: facilitated recall of insight solutions // Psychological research. 2013. Vol. 77. № 5. P. 659—669. DOI:10.1007/s00426-012-0454-8
  17. Danek A.H., Fraps T., von Müller A., Grothe B., Öllinger M. It's a kind of magic—what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving // Frontiers in psychology. 2014. Vol. 5. P. 1408. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01408
  18. Danek A.H., Wiley J. What about false insights? Deconstructing the Aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately // Frontiers in psychology. 2017. Vol. 7. P. 2077. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077
  19. Danek A.H., Wiley J., Öllinger M. Solving classical insight problems without aha! experience: 9 dot, 8 coin, and matchstick arithmetic problems // The Journal of Problem Solving. 2016. Vol. 9. № 1. P. 4. DOI:10.7771/1932-6246.1183
  20. Duncker K., Lees L.S. On problem-solving // Psychological monographs. 1945. Vol. 58. № DOI:10.1037/h0093599
  21. Ellis J.J. Using eye movements to investigate insight problem solving. PhD Thesis, 2012. 102 p. DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.007
  22. Fedor A., Szathmáry E., Öllinger M. Problem solving stages in the five square problem // Frontiers in psychology. 2015. Vol. 6. P. 1050. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01050
  23. Imamoglu F., Kahnt T., Koch C., Haynes J.D. Changes in functional connectivity support conscious object recognition // Neuroimage. 2012. Vol. 63. № 4. P. 1909—1917. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.056
  24. Jung-Beeman M., Bowden E.M., Haberman J., Frymiare J.L., Arambel-Liu S., Greenblatt R., … Dehaene S. Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight // PLoS biology. 2004. Vol. 2. № 4. P. e97. DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097
  25. Kizilirmak J.M., Gallisch N., Schott B.H., Folta-Schoofs K. Insight is not always the same: differences between true, false, and induced insights in the matchstick arithmetic task // Journal of cognitive psychology. 2021. Vol. 33. № 6-7. P. 700—717. DOI:10.1080/20445911.2021.1912049
  26. Kizilirmak J.M., Galvao Gomes da Silva J., Imamoglu F., Richardson-Klavehn A. Generation and the subjective feeling of “aha!” are independently related to learning from insight // Psychological Research. 2016. Vol. 80. № P. 1059—1074. DOI:10.1007/s00426-015-0697-2
  27. Klein G., Jarosz A. A naturalistic study of insight // Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. 2011. Vol. 5. № P. 335—351. DOI:10.1177/1555343411427013
  28. Knoblich G., Ohlsson S., Haider H., Rhenius D. Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition. 1999. Vol. 25. № P. 1534. DOI:10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1534
  29. Knoblich G., Ohlsson S., Raney G.E. An eye movement study of insight problem solving // Memory & cognition. 2001. Vol. 29. № P. 1000—1009. DOI:10.3758/BF03195762
  30. Laukkonen R.E., Ingledew D.J., Grimmer H.J., Schooler J.W., Tangen J.M. Getting a grip on insight: real-time and embodied Aha experiences predict correct solutions // Cognition and Emotion. 2021. Vol. 35. №. 5. P. 918—935. DOI:10.1080/02699931.2021.1908230
  31. Laukkonen R.E., Kaveladze B.T., Protzko J., Tangen J.M., von Hippel W., Schooler J.W. Irrelevant insights make worldviews ring true // Scientific reports. 2022. Vol. 12. № 1. P. 1—9. DOI:10.1038/s41598-022-05923-3
  32. Laukkonen R.E., Tangen J.M. How to detect insight moments in problem solving experiments // Frontiers in psychology. 2018. Vol. 9. P. 282. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00282
  33. Luo J., Knoblich G. Studying insight problem solving with neuroscientific methods // Methods. 2007. Vol. 42. № 1. P. 77—86. DOI:10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.005
  34. Luo J., Niki K., Phillips S. Neural correlates of the ‘Aha! reaction’ // Neuroreport. 2004. Vol. 15. № 13. P. 2013—2017.
  35. MacGregor J.N., Cunningham J.B. Rebus puzzles as insight problems // Behavior research methods. 2008. Vol. 40. № P. 263—268. DOI:10.3758/BRM.40.1.263
  36. Maier N.R.F. Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness // Journal of comparative Psychology. 1931. Vol. 12. № P. 181.
  37. Metcalfe J., Wiebe D. Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving // Memory & cognition. 1987. Vol. 15. № P. 238—246. DOI:10.3758/BF03197722
  38. 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. № 2. P. 351—382. DOI:10.1080/02724980244000288
  39. Ohlsson S. Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  40. Ohlsson S. Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena // Advances in the Psychology of Thinking / Keane M.T., Gilhooly K.J. (Eds.). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 1992. P. 1—44.
  41. Rothmaler K., Nigbur R., Ivanova G. New insights into insight: Neurophysiological correlates of the difference between the intrinsic “aha” and the extrinsic “oh yes” moment // Neuropsychologia. 2017. Vol. 95. P. 204—214. DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.12.017
  42. Salvi C., Bowden E.M. Looking for creativity: Where do we look when we look for new ideas? // Frontiers in psychology. 2016. P. 161. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161
  43. Salvi C., Bricolo E., Franconeri S.L., Kounios J., Beeman M. Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs // Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2015. Vol. 22. № 6. P. 1814—1819. DOI:10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0
  44. Salvi C., Bricolo E., Kounios J., Bowden E., Beeman M. Insight solutions are correct more often than analytic solutions // Thinking & reasoning. 2016. Vol. 22. № 6. P. 443—460. DOI:10.1080/13546783.2016.1141798
  45. Sawilowsky S.S. New effect size rules of thumb // Journal of modern applied statistical methods. 2009. Vol. 8. № 2. P. 26. DOI:10.22237/jmasm/1257035100
  46. Shen W., Yuan Y., Liu C., Luo J. In search of the аha-experience: Elucidating the emotionality of insight problem‐solving // British Journal of Psychology. 2016. Vol. 107. № 2. P. 281—298. DOI:10.1111/bjop.12142
  47. Spiridonov V., Loginov N., Ardislamov V. Dissociation between the subjective experience of insight and performance in the CRA paradigm // Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2021. Vol. 33. № 6—7. P. 685—699. DOI:10.1080/20445911.2021.1900198
  48. Topolinski S., Reber R. Immediate truth—Temporal contiguity between a cognitive problem and its solution determines experienced veracity of the solution // Cognition. 2010. Vol. 114. № 1. P. 117—122. DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.009
  49. Webb M.E., Cropper S.J., Little D.R. “Aha!” is stronger when preceded by a “huh?”: presentation of a solution affects ratings of aha experience conditional on accuracy // Thinking & Reasoning. 2019. Vol. 25. № 3. P. 324—364. DOI:10.1080/13546783.2018.1523807
  50. Webb M.E., Little D.R., Cropper S.J. Insight is not in the problem: Investigating insight in problem solving across task types // Frontiers in psychology. 2016. Vol. 7. P. 1424.DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01424
  51. Webb M.E., Little D.R., Cropper S. Once more with feeling: Normative data for the aha experience in insight and noninsight problems // Behavior research methods. 2018. Vol. 50. № 5. P. 2035— DOI:10.3758/s13428-017-0972-9
  52. Weisberg R.W. Prolegomena to theories of insight in problem solving: A taxonomy of problems // In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds). The nature of insight. The MIT Press. 1995. P. 157—196. DOI:10.7551/mitpress/4879.003.0009
  53. Weisberg R.W. Toward an integrated theory of insight in problem solving // Thinking & Reasoning. 2015. Vol. 21. № 1. P. 5— DOI:10.1080/13546783.2014.886625
  54. Wong T.J. Capturing' Aha!' moments of puzzle problems using pupillary responses and blinks: diss. University of Pittsburgh, 2009.

Information About the Authors

Natalia Y. Lazareva, Assistant of the Department of General Psychology, Researcher of Laboratory for Cognitive Research, Junior Researcher, P.G. Demidov Yaroslavl State University, Yaroslavl, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3807-8773, e-mail: lazareva_natasha93@mail.ru

Anna D. Savinova, PhD in Psychology, Researcher of Laboratory for Cognitive Research, P.G. Demidov Yaroslavl State University, Yaroslavl, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0593-2408, e-mail: anuta1334@ya.ru

Aleksandra V. Chistopolskaya, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Department of General Psychology, P.G. Demidov Yaroslavl State University, Yaroslavl, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6156-4876, e-mail: chistosasha@mail.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 708
Previous month: 49
Current month: 53

Downloads

Total: 248
Previous month: 16
Current month: 23