So‐called insight problems are widely studied because they tap into the creative thinking that is crucial for solving real problems. However, insight problems are typically presented in static formats (on paper, computer) that allow no physical interaction with the problem elements, whereas such an interaction might in fact reduce the load on limited cognitive resources, such as working memory (WM) capacity, thereby facilitating solutions. To test this proposition, 124 young adults were allowed to interact physically with nine established insight problems, while another 124 people attempted to solve these problems using paper and pencil. Additionally, hints were provided for three problems that typically no‐one solves. No general facilitating effect of physical interaction was found, with only one problem clearly benefitting from it. Furthermore, making use of hints was actually hindered by physical interaction. No difference in perceived task load and correlation with WM capacity was observed between the formats, and subjective ratings of insight were virtually unaffected by presentation format. Overall, physical interaction minimally affected insight problem‐solving, which appears to rely strongly on internalized cognitive processing involving WM.

Participants rated Intuition, Suddenness, Pleasure, and Certainty accompanying their solutions to items of a popular fluid intelligence test – Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) – that varied from easy (around 80% correct) to difficult (around 20% correct). The same ratings were collected from four insight problems interleaved with RAPM. Suddenness and Certainty substantially decreased from easy to difficult matrices (Pleasure strongly overlapped with Certainty). In easy matrices, subjective experience matched that observed during insight problems, suggesting the highly fluent processing resulting in vivid and univocal solutions. By contrast, processing difficult matrices seemed to involve effortful incremental combination of complex information that yielded uncertain outcomes, resembling full-blown analytic problems. Only Intuition, generally rated low, was unaffected by RAPM difficulty. These results suggest that RAPM constitutes a heterogeneous test, with easy vs. difficult items involving relatively distinct types of processing. This novel knowledge can help in understanding the processes underlying solving Raven’s matrices. The study also contributes to the understanding of the validity of subjective ratings as measures of metacognition.

No abstract

Reasoning by analogy requires mapping relational correspondence between two situations to transfer information from the more familiar (source) to the less familiar situation (target). However, the presence of distractors may lead to invalid conclusions based on semantic or perceptual similarities instead of on relational correspondence. To understand the role of distraction in analogy making, we examined semantically rich four-term analogies (A:B::C:?) and scene analogies, as well as semantically lean geometric analogies and the matrix task tapping general reasoning. We examined (a) what types of lures were most distracting, (b) how the two semantically rich analogy tasks were related, and (c) how much variance in the scores could be attributed to general reasoning ability. We observed that (a) in four-term analogies the distractors semantically related to C impacted performance most strongly, as compared to the perceptual, categorical, and relational distractors, but the two latter distractor types also mattered; (b) distraction sources in four-term and scene analogies were virtually unrelated; and (c) general reasoning explained the largest part of variance in resistance to distraction. The results suggest that various sources of distraction operate at different stages of analogical reasoning and differently affect specific analogy paradigms.