Intuition and Insight: Two Processes That Build on Each Other or Fundamentally Differ?

Abstract

Intuition and insight are intriguing phenomena of non-analytical mental functioning: whereas intuition denotes ideas that have been reached by sensing the solution without any explicit representation of it, insight has been understood as the sudden and unexpected apprehension of the solution by recombining the single elements of a problem. By face validity, the two processes appear similar; according to a lay perspective, it is assumed that intuition precedes insight. Yet, predominant scientific conceptualizations of intuition and insight consider the two processes to differ with regard to their (dis-)continuous unfolding. That is, intuition has been understood as an experience-based and gradual process, whereas insight is regarded as a genuinely discontinuous phenomenon. Unfortunately, both processes have been investigated differently and without much reference to each other. In this contribution, we therefore set out to fill this lacuna by examining the conceptualizations of the assumed underlying cognitive processes of both phenomena, and by also referring to the research traditions and paradigms of the respective field. Based on early work put forward by Bowers et al. (1990, 1995), we referred to semantic coherence tasks consisting of convergent word triads (i.e., the solution has the same meaning to all three clue words) and/or divergent word triads (i.e., the solution means something different with respect to each clue word) as an excellent kind of paradigm that may be used in the future to disentangle intuition and insight experimentally. By scrutinizing the underlying mechanisms of intuition and insight, with this theoretical contribution, we hope to launch lacking but needed experimental studies and to initiate scientific cooperation between the research fields of intuition and insight that are currently still separated from each other.

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

“…However, as the authors defined insight problem-based and not process-based, we have to be careful when comparing their results with our findings. In terms of the continuous and discontinuous approaches on insight described by Zander et al (2016) , our results seem to be more in support with the continuous model, which proposes a slow increase that ends in a sudden surge, similar to the curve proposed by Reber et al (2007) for intuitive problem solving and we conceive a curve that depicts Bowers’ approach on insight as the final stage of intuitive problem-solving ( Bowers et al, 1990 ). However, because we have only enough trials with at least three FoW ratings and because FoW was assessed in intervals of 5–6 s, our curve is not fine-grained enough to say for sure whether the FoW development is more similar to Reber’s intuition curve or his insight curve for the subjective closeness to the solution.…”

“…There are several limitations for the conclusions that can be drawn from the current manuscript. First, we do not know in how far our results can be generalized to other types of problems besides the CRAT and probably the incoherent triads that Zander et al (2016) referred to in their review. Second, to assess the course of FoW, we interrupted the problem-solving process of our participants in intervals of 5–7 s. We do not know in which way this or even asking for a FoW rating in itself may influence the ratings.…”

“… Zander et al (2016) discussed the two approaches on insight in a review on insight and intuition. They described continuous and discontinuous models for both and conclude that intuition researchers favor the continuous model of intuition.…”

Grounded and embodied mathematical cognition: Promoting mathematical insight and proof using action and language

“…Mathematical insights are defined as partial understandings of the key ideas underlying a mathematical system. Insight is related to but distinct from intuition (e.g., Zander, Öllinger, & Volz, 2016 ; Zhang, Lei, & Li, 2016 ): intuition draws on unconscious information to make a judgment (often Yes/No), without leaving a reportable trace of the decision-making process, whereas insights use conscious retrieval processes applied to both unconscious and conscious knowledge to report on one’s thoughts about a solution or to provide a partial solution. One of the challenges of insight processes is overcoming unhelpful associations (e.g., when conjectures about triangles inappropriately activate Pythagoras’ theorem).…”

Why You Don’t See the Forest for the Trees When You Are Anxious: Anxiety Impairs Intuitive Decision Making

“…In other words and in line with the above definition of intuition, people intuitively know that a triad is coherent without knowing why it is. In contrast, correct identifications of coherent triads for which the solution concept has been named, involve explicit processes, and are thus indicative for insight (see Bolte & Goschke, 2005; Zander, Öllinger, & Volz, 2016). Insofar, the semantic coherence task allows researchers to distinguish between intuitive judgments in which information is activated but not consciously accessible and explicit judgments in which insight is given (Bolte & Goschke, 2005; Remmers, Topolinski, Dietrich, & Michalak, 2015; Remmers, Topolinski, & Michalak, 2015; Topolinski & Strack, 2009b; Zander et al, 2016; Zander, Horr, Bolte, & Volz, 2015).…”