Insight Problem Solving: A Critical Examination of the Possibility of Formal Theory

Abstract

This paper provides a critical examination of the current state and future possibility of formal cognitive theory for insight problem solving and its associated "aha!" experience. Insight problems are contrasted with move problems, which have been formally defined and studied extensively by cognitive psychologists since the pioneering work of Alan Newell and Herbert Simon. To facilitate our discussion, a number of classical brainteasers are presented along with their solutions and some conclusions derived from observing the behavior of many students trying to solve them. Some of these problems are interesting in their own right, and many of them have not been discussed before in the psychological literature. The main purpose of presenting the brainteasers is to assist in discussing the status of formal cognitive theory for insight problem solving, which is argued to be considerably weaker than that found in other areas of higher cognition such as human memory, decision-making, categorization, and perception. We discuss theoretical barriers that have plagued the development of successful formal theory for insight problem solving. A few suggestions are made that might serve to advance the field.

Introspection in Problem Solving

“…But this does not mean we cannot be systematic and methodical about exploration. As there seems to be the general feeling that problem solving research is stuck (Batchelder and Alexander, 2012;Ohlsson, 2012;van Rooij et al, 2011), perhaps, there is a need for more systematic exploration. Luckily, there are many systematic exploratory methods to be found in applied research that we can build on (e.g., Crandall et al, 2006).…”

“…Luckily, there are many systematic exploratory methods to be found in applied research that we can build on (e.g., Crandall et al, 2006). More concretely, several authors have recently suggested to collect a large set of standardized insight problems and use them to get a better empirical base in order to understand insight problem solving (Batchelder and Alexander, 2012;Chu and MacGregor, 2011). Having standards in terms of problem difficulty and problem similarity will certainly be useful for designing and comparing studies.…”

“…Since the seminal work of Newell und Simon (1972) researchers do not seem to have made much theoretical progress (Batchelder and Alexander, 2012;Ohlsson, 2012). In this paper we argue that one factor that is holding back the field is the widespread rejection of introspection among cognitive scientists.…”

“…Several people have commented on this state of affairs at a recent workshop that inspired this paper (van Rooij et al, 2011). Two recent papers in this journal also offer an analysis of the current impasse in problem solving research (Batchelder and Alexander, 2012;Ohlsson, 2012). We would like to add to these commentaries that, perhaps, the widespread rejection of introspection among cognitive scientists is one of the factors that is holding back the field.…”

The Roles of Internal Representation and Processing in Problem Solving Involving Insight: A Computational Complexity Perspective

“…Hypothesized causes of this variation in move and insight problems are many and vary from the problem-specific (e.g., Kershaw & Ohlsson. 2004) to the general (Ash & Wiley, 2006;Batchelder & Alexander, 2011;Kaplan & Simon, 1990;Ohlsson, 2011;Öllinger & Knoblich, 2009;Ormerod et al, 2002). …”