Advertisement

Closing the gap: connecting sudden representational change to the subjective Aha! experience in insightful problem solving

  • Amory H. Danek
  • Joshua Williams
  • Jennifer Wiley
Original Article

Abstract

Two hallmarks of insightful problem solving are thought to be suddenness in the emergence of solution due to changes in problem representation, and the subjective Aha! experience. Although a number of studies have explored the Aha! experience, few studies have attempted to measure representational change. Following the lead of Durso et al. (Psychol Sci 5(2):94–97, 1994) and Cushen and Wiley (Conscious Cognit 21(3):1166–1175, 2012), in this study, participants made importance-to-solution ratings throughout their solution attempts as a way to assess representational change. Participants viewed a set of magic trick videos with the task of finding out how each trick worked, and rated six action verbs for each trick (including one that implied the correct solution) multiple times during solution. They were also asked to indicate the extent to which they experienced an Aha! moment. Patterns of ratings that showed a sudden change towards a correct solution led to stronger Aha! experiences than patterns that showed a more incremental change towards a correct solution, or a change towards incorrect solutions. The results show a connection between sudden changes in problem representations (leading to correct solutions) and the subjective appraisal of solutions as an Aha! experience. This offers the first empirical support for a close relationship between two theoretical constructs that have traditionally been assumed to be related to insightful problem solving.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to magician Thomas Fraps (http://www.thomasfraps.com) for performing the magic tricks used in this study and to Karen Reyna, Zahra Dorestani and Christine Chesebrough for help with coding.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by a grant to Amory Danek from the DFG (German Research Foundation) under Grant DA 1683/1-1, and a summer research fellowship from the UIC SROP to Joshua Williams.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Data availability

The dataset of the present study will be made available at the open repository for psychology data “PsychData” (https://www.psychdata.de/index.php?main=none&sub=none&lang=eng).

References

  1. Abbott, A. (2005). Physics and the public: Science as illusion. Nature, 434(7035), 820–820.  https://doi.org/10.1038/434820a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ash, I. K., Cushen, P. J., & Wiley, J. (2009). Obstacles in investigating the role of restructuring in insightful problem solving. The Journal of Problem Solving, 2(2), 6–41.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ash, I. K., & Wiley, J. (2008). Hindsight bias in insight and mathematical problem solving: Evidence of different reconstruction mechanisms for metacognitive versus situational judgments. Memory & Cognition, 36(4), 822–837.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowden, E. M. (1997). The effect of reportable and unreportable hints on anagram solution and the Aha! experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 6(4), 545–573.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1997.0325.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cushen, P. J., & Wiley, J. (2012). Cues to solution, restructuring patterns, and reports of insight in creative problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1166–1175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.03.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2013). Aha! experiences leave a mark: Facilitated recall of insight solutions. Psychological Research, 77(5), 659–669.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0454-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2014a). Working wonders? Investigating insight with magic tricks. Cognition, 130(2), 174–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2014b). It’s a kind of magic—What self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1408.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01408.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Danek, A. H., Wiley, J., & Öllinger, M. (2016). Solving classical insight problems without Aha! experience: 9 Dot, 8 Coin, and Matchstick Arithmetic Problems. The Journal of Problem Solving, 9(1), 47–57.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, J. E. (1995). The suddenness of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 125–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 33–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Duncker, K. (1926). A qualitative (experimental and theoretical) study of productive thinking (solving of comprehensible problems). Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 33, 642–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durso, F. T., Rea, C. B., & Dayton, T. (1994). Graph-theoretic confirmation of restructuring during insight. Psychological Science, 5(2), 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis, J. J., Glaholt, M. G., & Reingold, E. M. (2011). Eye movements reveal solution knowledge prior to insight. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 768–776.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gick, M. L., & Lockhart, R. S. (1995). Cognitive and affective components of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 197–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hedne, M. R., Norman, E., & Metcalfe, J. (2016). Intuitive feelings of warmth and confidence in insight and noninsight problem solving of magic tricks. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1314.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01314.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., et al. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), 500–510.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaplan, C. A., & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 374–419.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90008-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 29(7), 1000–1009.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195762.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Metcalfe, J. (1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(4), 623–634.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.4.623.Google Scholar
  22. Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15, 238–246.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ohlsson, S. (1984). Restructuring revisited: II. An information processing theory of restructuring and insight. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25, 117–129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1984.tb01005.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Kounios, J., Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. (2016). Insight solutions are correct more often than analytic solutions. Thinking & Reasoning, 22(4), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1141798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Utz, F. (2013). Dimensionen der Einsicht (Bachelor Thesis). Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Weisberg, R. W., & Alba, J. W. (1981). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 169–192.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.110.2.169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wertheimer, M. (1925). Drei Abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie. Erlangen: Verlag der Philosophischen Akademie Erlangen.Google Scholar
  29. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations