Individual differences in problem solving via insight

Abstract

The purpose of the present work was to identify general problem solving skills that underlie the production of insight. One hundred and eighteen participants completed insight problems, analogies, series-completion problems and the Remote Associates Test. Scores on all measures were related to performance on the insight problems (Pearson r's ranged from .31 to .47, p < .008). These findings are consistent with the notion that the abilities to apprehend relations and fluency of thought are involved in insightful problem solving.An insightful solution is one that is both non-obvious and functional (Dominowski, 1995;Sternberg and Lubart, 1996). Insight occurs when a solver restructures a previously intractable problem such that a new understanding of what needs to be done appears in consciousness. Restructuring changes the problem situation "from an unclear, inadequate relation, to a clear, transparent, direct confrontation--straight from the heart of the thinker to the heart of his object, of his problem" (Wertheimer, 1959, p. 236). What are the cognitive processes that underlie the ability to perform such a Weisberg and Alba, 1981) alike have been interested in defining the processes that give rise to insight. The purpose of the present work was to use an individual differences approach to help disentangle the cognitive processes that underlie the production of insight.The individual differences approach has not been used often in the context of understanding insight. However, Jacobs and Dominowski (1981) found that performance across different object-use insight problems (e.g., the Candle-Box problem) was correlated. Further, Schooler and Melcher (1995) reported the findings from an unpublished study in which they identified perceptual restructuring and ability to break context as predictive of performance on insight problems and not on non-insight problems. Schooler and Melcher argued that because these two skills uniquely predicted insightful problem solving, they are representative of the distinct cognitive processing that is involved in producing insight. Whereas Schooler and Melcher focused on identifying what it is that distinguishes insightful problem solving from other types of problem solving, the present work focused on determining which general thinking skills underlie insightful problem solving. Greeno (1978) provided the theoretical framework for the present study. He argued

Visual Attention Modulates Insight Versus Analytic Solving of Verbal Problems

“…Although general problem solving skills support both creative and analytic thought (Ansburg, 2000), creative thought may rely more on diffuse states of attention than on focused states of attention because incidental cues provide more benefit to creative problem solving efforts, whereas these incidental cues simply distract from analytic problem solving efforts (Seifert et al, 1995). However, it is also important to note that broadened or defocused attention by itself does not automatically lead to creative thought.…”

“…Attention is one of several factors thought to affect the ability to solve problems with insight, creativity, or cognitive flexibility, within and across individuals (Ansburg, 2000; Ansburg & Hill, 2003). Some states of attention appear particularly conducive to insight solving, and other states of attention appear conducive to analytic solving.…”

“…Although solutions by analysis and insight involve overlapping processes (Ansburg, 2000), several processes are unique to each type of solving. Participants often report that they begin each problem by thinking about possible compound words that will fit one or more of the problem words (e.g.…”

Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems

“…For the most part, the RAT and RAT-like problems have been used in the study of problem solving and creative thinking (e.g., Ansburg, 2000;Beeman & Bowden, 2000;Bowden & Beeman, 1998;Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003;Bowers, Regehr, Balthazard, & Parker, 1990;Dallob & Dominowski, 1993;Dorfman, Shames, & Kihlstrom, 1996;Schooler & Melcher, 1995;Shames, 1994;Smith & Blankenship, 1989). They have also been used in a variety of innovative ways, including in the study of psychopathologies (e.g., Fodor, 1999), affect (e.g., Mikulincer & Sheffi, 2000), and success and failure experiences (e.g., Vohs & Heatherton, 2001), and as an alternative to illusory feedback (e.g., McFarlin & Blascovich, 1984).…”

Affect and Creative Performance on Crowdsourcing Platforms

“…We chose the RAT task based on several factors. First, the RAT is useful for studying insight and creative performance because it has high predictive validity -that is, achievement on the RAT correlates well with achievement on other creative problem solving tasks [26]. Thus, the results we achieve with the RAT should extend to other crowdsourcing tasks that require creative-and insight-based problem solving.…”