Feelings-of-Warmth Increase More Abruptly for Verbal Riddles Solved With in Contrast to Without Aha! Experience

Abstract

When we are confronted with a new problem, we typically try to apply strategies that have worked in the past and which usually lead closer to the solution incrementally. However, sometimes, either during a problem-solving attempt that does not seem to lead closer to the solution, or when we have given up on problem-solving for the moment, the solution seems to appear out of nowhere. This is often called a moment of insight. Whereas the cognitive processes of getting closer to the solution are still unknown for insight problem-solving, there are two diverging theories on the subjective feeling of getting closer to the solution: (1) One that states that an intuitive feeling of closeness to the solution increases slowly, but incrementally, before it surpasses the threshold to consciousness and becomes verbalizable (=insight) (continuous approach), and (2) another that proposes that the feeling of closeness to the solution does not increase before it exceeds the threshold to consciousness (discontinuous approach). Here, we investigated the subjective feeling of closeness to the solution, assessed as feeling-of-warmth (FoW), its relationship to solving the problem versus being presented with it and whether a feeling of Aha! was experienced. Additionally, we tested whether Aha! experiences are more likely when the problem is solved actively by the participant or presented to the participant after an unsuccessful problem-solving attempt, and whether the frequency of Aha! experiences correlates with problem difficulty. To our knowledge, this is the first study combining the CRAT with FoW assessments for the named conditions (solved/unsolved, three difficulty levels, Aha!/no Aha!). We used a verbal problem-solving task, the Compound Remote Associates Task (CRAT). Our data revealed that Aha! experiences were more often reported for solutions generated by the participant compared to solutions presented after unsuccessful problem-solving. Moreover, FoW curves showed a steeper increase for the last two FoW ratings when problems were solved with Aha! in contrast to without Aha!. Based on this observation, we provide a preliminary explanation for the underlying cognitive process of solving CRA problems via insight.

The susceptibility of compound remote associate problems to disruption by irrelevant sound: a Window onto the component processes underpinning creative cognition?

“…Fifty-seven CRAT items were selected from the normative set of problems provided by Bowden and Jung-Beeman (2003b), with all of the chosen problems being solved on average within 30 s. Problems, including solutions, were chosen on the basis of having no word overlap and were screened for their appropriateness in UK English. Consistent with previous studies (Ball & Stevens, 2009;Kizilirmak et al, 2018), the chosen problems were then divided using a median split based on solution rates, into a set of easy CRAT items (n = 30; mean solution rate: M = .68, SD = .16; mean solution time: M = 8.18 s, SD = 2.6) and a set of difficult CRAT items (n = 27; mean solution rate: M = .27, SD = .13; mean solution times: M = 11.9 s, SD = 2.9).…”

“…Consistent with previous findings (e.g. Kizilirmak et al, 2018) the frequency with which participants reported a Complete Insight, "Aha!" experience, over Complete Strategy was not influenced by CRAT problem difficulty.…”

Getting a grip on insight: An embodied measure of Aha! and metacognition during problem solving

“…On the other hand, since analytic problems are solved consciously and analytically, the phenomenology of Aha has no further informational value beyond what one already knows. These results also further point to an important dissociation between feelings-ofwarmth measures of suddenness, and phenomenological measures of Aha (Bialić et al, 2019;Kizilirmak et al, 2016Kizilirmak et al, , 2018Metcalfe & Wiebe, 1987).…”

A Systematic Review of Creativity-Related Studies Applying the Remote Associates Test From 2000 to 2019

“…experience of insight (Bowden and Jung-Beeman, 2003b;Du et al, 2017;Kraus and Holtgraves, 2018), the mechanisms that occur in the brain when solving insight problems, such as brain networks, brain structure, brain function, and brain waves (Sandkühler and Bhattacharya, 2008;Kizilirmak et al, 2016a;Shen et al, 2016b;Rothmaler et al, 2017;Erickson et al, 2018;Ji et al, 2018;Ogawa et al, 2018;Ruggiero et al, 2018;Tik et al, 2018;Tempest and Radel, 2019), and eye movements (Huang, 2017;Huang et al, 2019). In addition, some studies focused on how individuals' attention (Cushen and Wiley, 2018;Zmigrod et al, 2019), meta-cognition (Storm and Hickman, 2015), creative thinking fluency (Ansburg, 2000), and intuition (Kizilirmak et al, 2018) influence insight problem solving. The RAT is often used to measure individuals' insight problem solving ability as well as to test the internal cognitive process (like incubation and the aha!…”