How physical interaction with insight problems affects solution rates, hint use, and cognitive load

Abstract

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.

Accident and agency: a mixed methods study contrasting luck and interactivity in problem solving

“…Expanding the problem space in the lab to incorporate engagement with problem solving materials tends to increase success in solving insight problems, suggesting that such materials can themselves scaffold or even trigger moments of insight (Henok et al, 2020;Steffensen et al, 2016;Vallée-Tourangeau, 2014). However, solution rates with interactivity vary as a function of the type of problem and the material provided to the participants (Chuderski et al, 2020), which suggests that in these nonlinear tasks, interactivity leads to complex and unpredictable outcomes. Therefore, we are arguing for increased attention to be paid to the mechanisms through which interactivity can support or otherwise affect cognition with the understanding that it may not be a straightforwardly augmentative process (Ross & F. Vallée-Tourangeau, 2021; There are two main possible explanations for the augmentative effect of interactivity.…”

“…Insight problems are those that are not solved by linear step by step processes but rather require an abductive leap and therefore the role of working memory and cognitive offloading is necessarily smaller (Gilhooly & Webb, 2018). The strong evidence for the benefits of interactivity in analytical problem solving is not matched by similar evidence in insight problem solving (see Chuderski et al, 2020;Vallée-Tourangeau, 2014). If interactivity is most beneficial as a working memory scaffold, it makes sense that the clear augmentative benefits are somewhat dissipated in insight problem solving.…”

Metacognitive experience on Raven’s matrices versus insight problems

“…All the problems were presented in an interactive format, that is, small balls representing bacteria, real socks, actual coins, and plastic sticks were provided, to increase the chance for genuine insight (see Weller et al, 2011). Four minutes were allowed for each matchstick problem, and 2 min were given for each classic insight problem (the times were based on previous research on interactive insight problems; see Chuderski et al, 2020;Weller et al, 2011).…”

Insight as discovery

“…First order problem solving tasks can be instrumentalized to provide data that reveals the physical traces of problem solving, to map the genesis of a new idea (Vallée-Tourangeau & Vallée-Tourangeau, 2020b). Failing to record and code with some precision how and to what degree participants interact with the physical model of the problem will not reveal the interim proto solutions that are reified physically; the origin of a new idea, in this instance the solution to a problem, will remain inaccessible (for an example, see Chuderski, Jastrzębski, & Kucwaj, 2020).…”