Mind & Society

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 53–67 | Cite as

Intuitive and analytical processes in insight problem solving: a psycho-rhetorical approach to the study of reasoning

Article

Abstract

Language and thought share a unitary cognitive activity, addressed by an interpretative function. This interpretative effort reveals the assonance between the attribution of meaning to an utterance and the discovery of a solution via restructuring in insight problem solving. We suggest a view of complex integrated analytical thinking, which assumes that thinking processes information in different ways, depending on the characteristics of the tasks the subject has to solve, so that reasoning results in a stepwise, rule-based process or in a widespread activity of search where implicit parallel processes are also involved. We investigated the interrelationship between language and thought in insight problem solving, in both its positive (Experiments 1 and 3) and its negative effects (Experiment 2). Our results are discussed in the light of the debate on dual processing theories.

Keywords

Insight problems Analytical thinking Dual systems Formulation effect Verbalization effect 

References

  1. Bagassi M, Macchi L (2006) Pragmatic approach to decision making under uncertainty: the case of the disjunction effect. Think Reason 12(3):329–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagassi M, D’Addario M, Macchi L, Sala V (2009) Children’s acceptance of underinformative sentences: the case of some as a determiner. Think Reason 15(2):105–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsalou LW (2009) Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philos T Roy Soc B 364:1281–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betsch T (2008) The nature of intuition and its neglect in research on judgment and decision making. In: Plessner H, Betsch C, Betsch T (eds) Intuition in judgment and decision making. Psychology Press, New York, pp 3–23Google Scholar
  5. Carruthers P (2006) The architecture of the mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carruthers P (2011) The opacity of mind: an integrative theory of self-knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1984) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans JSBT (2009) How many dual-process theories do we need? In: Evans JSBT, Frankish K (eds) In two minds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 33–55Google Scholar
  9. Evans JSBT (2010) Dual-process theories of reasoning: facts and fallacies. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG (eds) The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans JSBT, Over DE (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans JSBT, Frankish K (eds) (2009) In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Frankish K (2009) Systems and levels; dual-system theories and the personal-subpersonal distinction. In: Evans JSBT, Frankish K (eds) In two minds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 89–109Google Scholar
  13. Frankish K (2010) Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass 5(10):914–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4):25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilhooly KJ, Fioratou E, Henretty N (2010) Verbalization and problem solving: insight and spatial factors. Brit J Psychol 101(1):81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hammond KR (1996) Human judgment and social policy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58(9):697–720Google Scholar
  18. Kanizsa G (1973) Il “problem-solving” nella psicologia della Gestalt. In: Mosconi G, D’Urso V (eds) La soluzione di problem. Giunti-Barbera, Firenze, pp 35–87Google Scholar
  19. Levinson SC (1995) Interactional biases in human thinking. In: Goody EN (ed) Social intelligence and interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macchi L (2000) Partitive formulation of information in probabilistic reasoning: beyond heuristics and frequency format explanations. Organ Behav Hum Dec 82(2):217–236Google Scholar
  21. Macchi L, Bagassi M (2006) Biased communication and misleading intuition of probability. Meeting on Intuition and Affect in Risk Perception and Decision Making, BergenGoogle Scholar
  22. Maier NRF (1931) Reasoning in Humans II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. J Comp Psychol 12:181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mercier H, Sperber D (2009) Intuitive and reflective inferences. In: Evans JSBT, Frankish K (eds) In two minds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 149–171Google Scholar
  24. Mosconi G (1978) Il pensiero discorsivo. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  25. Mosconi G (1986) Studio su due problem proposti da Wertheimer, con alcune note sulla “ristrutturazione”. Giorn IT Psicol 13(3):463–481Google Scholar
  26. Mosconi G (1998) Norma logica e regole discorsive nella ricerca sul ragionamento. In: Castellani F, Montecucco L (eds) Normatività logica e ragionamento di senso comune. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp 223–241Google Scholar
  27. Ohlsson S (1984) Restructuring revisited I: summary and critique of the Gestalt theory of problem solving. Scand J Psychol 25:65–78Google Scholar
  28. Politzer G (1986) Laws of language use and formal logic. J Psycholinguist Res 15(1):47–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schooler JW, Ohlsson S, Brooks K (1993) Thoughts beyond words: when language overshadows insight. J Exp Psychol Gen 122(2):166–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simon HA, Newell A (1971) Human problem solving: the state of theory. Am Psychol 21(2):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sloman SA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 119:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sperber D, Wilson D (2002) Pragmatics, modularity and mind reading. Mind Lang 17:3–23Google Scholar
  33. Stanovich KE (2009) Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In: Evans JSBT, Frankish K (eds) In two minds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–88Google Scholar
  34. Stanovich KE (2011) Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanovich KE, West RE (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci 23:645–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sternberg RJ, Davidson JE (eds) (1986) Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Wertheimer M (1925) Über Schlussprozesse im produktiven Denken. In Drei Abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie. Verlag der Philosophischen Akademie, ErlangenGoogle Scholar
  38. Wertheimer M (1985) A gestalt perspective on computer simulations of cognitive processes. Comput Hum Behav 1:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations