Metacognitive experience on Raven’s matrices versus insight problems

Abstract

Participants rated Intuition, Suddenness, Pleasure, and Certainty accompanying their solutions to items of a popular fluid intelligence test – Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) – that varied from easy (around 80% correct) to difficult (around 20% correct). The same ratings were collected from four insight problems interleaved with RAPM. Suddenness and Certainty substantially decreased from easy to difficult matrices (Pleasure strongly overlapped with Certainty). In easy matrices, subjective experience matched that observed during insight problems, suggesting the highly fluent processing resulting in vivid and univocal solutions. By contrast, processing difficult matrices seemed to involve effortful incremental combination of complex information that yielded uncertain outcomes, resembling full-blown analytic problems. Only Intuition, generally rated low, was unaffected by RAPM difficulty. These results suggest that RAPM constitutes a heterogeneous test, with easy vs. difficult items involving relatively distinct types of processing. This novel knowledge can help in understanding the processes underlying solving Raven’s matrices. The study also contributes to the understanding of the validity of subjective ratings as measures of metacognition.

Metacognitive Awareness Scale, Domain Specific (MCAS-DS): Assessing Metacognitive Awareness During Raven’s Progressive Matrices

“…In addition, the matrices have properties that could lend themselves to segmentation of cognitive processesa strength already recognized in the field of cognitive and neuroimaging studies (Carpenter et al, 1990;Prabhakaran et al, 1997;Christoff et al, 2001;Silberstein et al, 2004;Song, 2005). Chuderski et al (2020) summarizes the types of methods used to examine the cognitive processes involved in solving the matrices. They include identification of strategies using eye-tracking technique, and examining elementary cognitive variables such as working memory capacity.…”

“…The results showed that the metacognitive experiences may vary within the set of matrices. The study demonstrated and argued that Raven's Progressive Matrices is worthy of greater scrutiny due to its popularity as an intelligence test used in basic, educational and professional settings as well as the role it can play to advance the knowledge about human cognitive ability (Chuderski et al, 2020). Therefore, given the close relationship between SPM and fluid intelligence, and the opportunity afforded by Raven's Progressive Matrices in elucidating higher level cognitive processes, it is chosen as the focal task upon which metacognition, specifically, metacognitive awareness, will be measured in this study.…”

“…Although this has been contested, it is still often thought to measure the fluid intelligence branch within the Cattell-Horn-Carroll intelligence model (Stankov, 2000;Gignac, 2015;Waschl et al, 2016). Some have called it a "hallmark fluid intelligence test (Chuderski et al, 2020).…”

The Cognitive–Creative Profiles of Insightful Problem Solvers: A Person‐Centered Insight Study

“…Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1996) assesses fluid intelligence (Chuderski, Jastrzębski, Kroczek, Kucwaj, & Ociepka, 2020). It comprises of geometric 3x3 matrices with one cell missing.…”

В Погоне За Инсайтом: Современные Подходы И Методы Измерения Инсайта В Когнитивной Психологии

“…Первая важная тенденция исследований последних десяти лет состоит в признании большинством исследователей необходимости независимого измерения обоих компонентов (как когнитивного, так и аффективного) в рамках одного эксперимента для того, чтобы исследовать природу и механизмы инсайта. Этот подход принимают даже те исследователи, которые утверждают, что никакого специфического механизма инсайта в виде одномоментного переструктурирования не существует и ага-переживание как ощущение внезапности решения, возникшего из ниоткуда, -не более чем ошибка интроспекции [Chuderski et al, 2020;Sandkuhler, Bhattacharya, 2011;.…”