Abstract
People can solve problems in two main styles: through a methodical analysis, or by a sudden insight (also known as ‘Aha!’ or ‘Eureka!’ experience). Analytical solutions are achieved primarily with conscious deliberation in a trial-and-error fashion. ‘Aha!’ moments, instead, happen suddenly, often without conscious deliberation and are considered a critical facet of creative cognition. Previous research has indicated an association between creativity and risk taking (a personality trait); however, few studies have investigated how a short-term situational state of risk modulates these two different problem-solving styles. In this research, we looked at how both state and trait risks taking is related to different problem-solving styles. To measure risk as a personality trait, we administered the Balloon Analog Risk Task. To investigate risk as a state, we created a scenario, where people had to bet on their problem-solving performance at the beginning of each trial, and we compared the performance of this group with a control group that did not have to bet. The results show no association between risk as a trait and problem-solving style; however, the risk state scenario did produce a shift in dominant problem-solving style with participants in the risk scenario group solving more problems via analysis. We also found that two factors are related to problem-solving accuracy: the amount bet (i.e., when people place higher bets, they solve more problems), and success on the previous trial, especially if the solution was achieved via analysis. Furthermore, the data reveal that when under risk, females are better problem solvers than males.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The instructions about this ratio read as: “The explosion point varies across balloons, ranging from the first pump to the 128th pump. The ideal number of pumps is 64. What that means is that if you were to make the same number of pumps on every balloon, your best strategy would be to make 64 pumps for every balloon. This would give you the most money over a long period of time. However, the actual number of pumps for any particular balloon will vary, so the best overall strategy may not be the best strategy for any one balloon.”
Two participants were removed from the problem-solving analysis because they rarely reported using one of the solution styles. Participant 1, female, reported solving by analysis for only 0.02% of her solutions, while participant 2, male, did not report solving any problems by analysis.
No main effects within or between groups were found.
No main effects within or between groups were found.
One possible explanation is that participants bet differently on the two tasks because they viewed outcomes in the BART as based on luck but viewed outcomes in the CRA task as based on ability.
Because we transformed the data in a continuous variable we did not need to exclude those two participants who reported solving too few problems via either insight or analysis.
References
Aklin, W. M., Lejuez, C. W., Zvolensky, M. J., Kahler, C. W., & Gwadz, M. (2005). Evaluation of behavioral measures of risk taking propensity with inner-city adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.12.007.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: Theeffects of contracted-for reward. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(1), 14.
Ansburg, P. I., & Dominowski, R. I. (2000). Promoting insightful problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(1), 30–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01201.x.
Arkes, H. R., Herren, L. T., & Isen, A. M. (1988). The role of potential loss in the influence risk taking behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(88)90011-8.
Ashby, F. G., Isen, aM., & Turken, aU. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529–550.
Bannier, C. E., & Neubert, M. (2016). Gender differences in financial risk taking: The role of financial literacy and risk tolerance. Economics Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.05.033.
Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect, and personality: Unconscious coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1213.
Benedek, M. (2018). 10 Internally Directed Attention in Creative Cognition. The Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity, 180.
Benedek, M., Schickel, R. J., Jauk, E., Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Alpha power increases in right parietal cortex reflects focused internal attention. Neuropsychologia, 56, 393–400.
Benedek, M., Stoiser, R., Walcher, S., & Körner, C. (2017). Eye behavior associated with internally versus externally directed cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(June), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01092.
Bishop, S., Duncan, J., Brett, M., & Lawrence, A. D. (2004). Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: Controlling attention to threat-related stimuli. Nature Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1173.
Bolte, A., Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (2003). Emotion and intuition: Effects of positive and negative mood on implicit judgments of semantic coherence. Psychological Science, 14(5), 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01456.
Bowden, E., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9(6), 435–440.
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 35(4), 634–639.
Charyton, C., Snelbecker, G. E., Rahman, M. A., & Elliott, J. O. (2013). College students’ creative attributes as a predictor of cognitive risk tolerance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032706.
Cristofori, I., Salvi, C., Beeman, M., & Grafman, J. (2018). The effects of expected reward on creative problem solving. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(5), 925–931.
Cummings, L. L., & Mize, G. W. (1968). Risk-taking and organizational creativity. Personnel Administration, 1(31), 38–47.
Danek, A. H., & Salvi, C. (2018). Moment of truth: Why aha! Experiences are correct. Journal of Creative Behavior, 0, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.380.
Danek, A. H., & Wiley, J. (2017). What about false insights? Deconstructing the Aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2077. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077.
Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01265.x.
Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and Problem Solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 273–278). MIT Press.
Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.343.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047707.
Eisenman, R. (1987). Creativity, birth order, and risk taking. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(2), 87–88. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330292.
El-Murad, J., & West, D. C. (2003). Risk and creativity in advertising. Journal of Marketing Management, 19(5), 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725703322189995.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Verbal reports on thinking. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Multilingual matters, No. 30. Introspection in second language research (pp. 24–53). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Fecteau, S., Knoch, D., Fregni, F., Sultani, N., Boggio, P., & Pascual-leone, A. (2007). Diminishing risk taking behavior by modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex: A direct current stimulation study. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(46), 12500–12505. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3283-07.2007.
Federmeier, K. D., Kirson, D. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2001). Effects of transient, mild mood states on semantic memory organization and use: An event-related potential investigation in humans. Neuroscience Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(01)01843-2.
Fein, G., & Chang, M. (2008). Smaller feedback ERN amplitudes during the BART are associated with a greater family history density of alcohol problems in treatment-naïve alcoholics. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.07.017.
Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002.
Friedman, R. S., & Foster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: implications for creativity and analytical problem solving ronald. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 263–275.
Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Förster, J., & Werth, L. (2003). Attentional priming effects on creativity. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651420.
Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00406.
Grunewald, K., & Bowden, E. M. (2018). Whose insight is it anyway?. In Insight (pp. 28–50). Routledge.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence (Vol. 5). New York: McGraw Hill.
Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: self–others discrepancies in risk preference. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 126(1), 45.
Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1999). Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(2), 165–179.
Holmes, J. B., Waters, H. S., & Rajaram, S. (1998). The phenomenology of false memories: Episodic content and confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.1026.
Hunt, M. K. (2005). Construct validity of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART): Associations with psychopathy and impulsivity. Assessment, 12(4), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105278740.
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1206.
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1413.
Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: It is just not worth the risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 710–717. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.55.5.710.
Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on risk taking: When the chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31(2), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90120-4.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 52, 1122–1131.
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097.
Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115154.
Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind: Neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17(10), 882–890. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01798.x.
Laukkonen, R. E., & Tangen, J. M. (2018). How to detect insight moments in problem solving experiments. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 282.
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., & Brown, R. a. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 8(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75.
Lejuez, C. W., Simmons, B. L., Aklin, W. M., Daughters, S. B., & Dvir, S. (2004). Risk taking propensity and risky sexual behavior of individuals in residential substance use treatment. Addictive Behaviors. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.02.035.
Lemaster, P., & Strough, J. N. (2014). Beyond mars and venus: Understanding gender differences in financial risk tolerance. Journal of Economic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.11.001.
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1992). Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99(1), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.172.
McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., & Scheinberg, S. (1992). Elitists, risk takers, and rugged individualists? An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90008-F.
Mednick, S. A. (1968). Remote associates test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213–214.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Communications (Vol. 104). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Nygren, T. E. (1998). Reacting to Perceived High- and Low-Risk Win-Lose Opportunities in a Risky Decision- Making Task : Is It Framing or Affect or Bth? Motivation and Emotion, 22(1), 73–98.
Nygren, T. E., Isen, A. M., Taylor, P. J., & Dulin, J. (1996). The influence of positive affect on the decision rule in risk situations: Focus on outcome (and especially avoidance of loss) rather than probability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0038.
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6%3C768::AID-JCLP2270510607%3E3.0.CO;2-1
Pessiglione, M., Schmidt, L., Draganski, B., Kalisch, R., Lau, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2007). How the brain translates money into force: A neuroimaging study of subliminal motivation. Science, 316(5826), 904–906. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140459.
Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00026-3.
Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., & Anderson, A. K. (2007). Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(1), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605198104.
Salvi, C., & Bowden, E. M. (2016). Looking for creativity: Where do we look when we look for new ideas? Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161.
Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Bowden, E., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2016). Insight solutions are correct more often than those achieved by analysis. Thinking and Reasoning. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1141798.
Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0.
Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Bricolo, E., Perugini, M., & Beeman, M. (2016). Validation of Italian rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems. Behavior research methods, 48(2), 664–685. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0597-9.
Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Pace, A., & Palmiero, M. (2018). Validation of the Italian remote associate test. Journal Of Creative Behavior, 0, 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.345.
Salvi, C., Cristofori, I., Grafman, J., & Beeman, M. (2016). The politics of insight. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1136338.
Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 97–133). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Shen, W., Hommel, B., Yuan, Y., & Zhang, W. (2018). Risk taking and creativity: Convergent, but not divergent thinking is better in low-risk takers. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2).
Simmons, A. L., & Ren, R. (2009). The influence of goal orientation and risk on creativity. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903297980.
Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). When attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering mind. Memory and Cognition, 36(6), 1144–1150. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1144.
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. (2015). The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness the science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 487–518. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331.
Spielberger, C. D. (1987). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Anxiety. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06496-000.
Spielberger, R., Lushere, R., C.. G (1971). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Professional Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06496-000.
Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21057.
Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.4.385.
Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Choma, B., & Denham, S. L. (2018). The ‘right’ side of creativity: Creative personality and social risk taking predict political party affiliation. Creativity Research Journal, 00(00), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1540252.
Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Hall, S. D., Runco, M., & Denham, S. L. (2017). The risky side of creativity: Domain specific risk taking in creative individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00145.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., & Cropper, S. J. (2016). Insight is not in the problem: Investigating insight in problem solving across task types. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1424. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01424.
Wegbreit, E., Suzuki, S., Grabowecky, M., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2012). Visual attention modulates insight versus analytic solving of verbal problems. The Journal of Problem Solving, 4(2), 94–115.
Acknowledgements
We thank the two reviewers and the Editor for their constructive criticisms on the earlier draft of this article, and for motivating further analysis that allowed us to find unpredicted results. This work was supported by NIH under Grant no. T32 NS047987 to CS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors have contributed equally to the manuscript and the designing and performing of the research.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salvi, C., Bowden, E. The relation between state and trait risk taking and problem-solving. Psychological Research 84, 1235–1248 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01152-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01152-y