Abstract
Previous research on how problem-difficulty affects solution-types of insight-problems has yielded contradictory findings. Thus, we aimed to examine the impact of problem-difficulty on solution-types in both inter- and intra-problem-difficulty contexts. For this, we employed the original 8-coin, and 9-dot problems and four hinted-versions of those that were manipulated by using hints-to-remove-sources-of-difficulty to alter their difficulty level. Those manipulations were executed based on the assumptions of constraint-relaxation and chunk-decomposition as posited by representational change theory. The study involved a total of 165 participants who were tested in five groups (33 per se), with each group receiving an original or hinted problem. Following their correct solutions, problem-solvers classified their solution-types (insight or non-insight solutions) by whether they had an Aha!-experience during the solution. Across all groups, 56.1% of correctly solved insight problems were solved with Aha!-experience, based on participants' self-reports, implying that correct solutions should not be equated with insight. Subsequently, the solution-type rates were compared for both original problems (inter-problem-difficulty) and hinted versions of those at each difficulty level (intra-problem-difficulty). Inter-problem-difficulty comparisons demonstrated that the easier 8-coin problem was more likely to be solved with insight than the harder 9-dot problem. In contrast, intra-problem-difficulty comparisons revealed that harder problems were more likely to be solved with insight. These findings suggest that problem-difficulty should be considered in future studies of insight. Finally, separate analyses on the predictive values of the cognitive-affective-dimensions on solution-types revealed that, after adjusting for problem-difficulty, problem-solvers with higher suddenness scores in both problems exhibited a significantly higher probability of generating insight solutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the OSF repository, https://osf.io/2dc8g/?view_only=bbc6136b3df4479aa09cdcb891932523
References
Ammalainen, A., & Moroshkina, N. (2021). The effect of true and false unreportable hints on anagram problem solving, restructuring, and the Aha!-experience. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 33(6–7), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1844722
Beeman, M. J., & Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems. Memory & Cognition, 28(7), 1231–1241.
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
Bowden, E. M., & 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). Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 730–737.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2020). Decision-making competence: More than intelligence? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420901592
Chein, J. M., Weisberg, R. W., Streeter, N. L., & Kwok, S. (2010). Working memory and insight in the nine-dot problem. Memory & Cognition, 38, 883–892.
Chronicle, E. P., Ormerod, T. C., & MacGregor, J. N. (2001). When insight just won’t come: The failure of visual cues in the nine-dot problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a: Human Experimental Psychology, 54(3), 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755996
Cinan, S., Özen, G., & Hampshire, A. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis on separability of planning and insight constructs. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 7–23.
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
Dağ, I. (1991). Belirti Tarama Listesi (SCL-90-R)’nin üniversite öğrencileri için güvenirliği ve geçerliği [Reliability and validity of the Symptom Check List (SCL-90-R) for university students]. In Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi (Vol. 2, pp. 5–12).
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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077
Danek, A. H., Williams, J., & Wiley, J. (2018). Closing the gap: connecting sudden representational change to the subjective Aha! experience in insightful problem solving. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0977-8
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 Psychologische Forschung, 77(5), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0454-8
Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2014). It’s a kind of magic-what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01408
Danek, A. H., Wiley, J., & Öllinger, M. (2016). Solving classical insight problems without aha! experience: 9 Dot, 8 Coin, and matchstick arithmetic problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 9(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1183
Davidson, J. E. (1995). The suddenness of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 125–155). The MIT Press.
Deragotis, L. R., & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: A study in construct validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 981–989.
Dudley, R., Taylor, P., Wickham, S., & Hutton, P. (2016). Psychosis, delusions and the “Jumping to Conclusions” reasoning bias: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(3), 652–665. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbv150
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599
Duncker, K. (1926). A qualitative (experimental and theoretical) study of productive thinking (solving of comprehensible problems). Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 33(4), 642–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1926.10533052
Durso, F. T., Rea, C. B., & Dayton, T. (1994). Graph-theoretic confirmation of restructuring during insight. Psychological Science, 5(2), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9639.1993.tb00256.x
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
Fear, C. F., & Healy, D. (1997). Probabilistic reasoning in obsessive-compulsive and delusional disorders. Psychological Medicine, 27(1), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291796004175
Fedor, A., Szathmáry, E., & Öllinger, M. (2015). Problem solving stages in the five square problem. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(August), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01050
Fleck, J. I., & Weisberg, R. W. (2004). The use of verbal protocols as data: An analysis of insight in the candle problem. Memory & Cognition, 32, 990–1006.
Fleck, J. I., & Weisberg, R. W. (2013). Insight versus analysis: Evidence for diverse methods in problem solving. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 436–463.
Freeman, D., Pugh, K., & Garety, P. (2008). Jumping to conclusions and paranoid ideation in the general population. Schizophrenia Research, 102(1–3), 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2008.03.020
Gilhooly, K. J., & Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(3), 279–302.
Goldberg, E., Harner, R., Lovell, M., Podell, K., & Riggio, S. (1994). Cognitive bias, functional cortical geometry, and the frontal lobes: Laterality, sex, and handedness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(3), 276–296. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1994.6.3.276
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, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01314
Jones, G. (2003). Testing two cognitive theories of insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 29(5), 1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.1017
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), e97. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097
Kershaw, T. C. (2004). Key actions in insight problems: Further evidence for the importance of non-dot turns in the nine-dot problem. In Proceedings of the 26h Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 678–683). http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/cogsci2004/papers/paper156.pdf
Kershaw, T. C., & Ohlsson, S. (2004). Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: The case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 30(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.3
Kizilirmak, J. M., Serger, V., Kehl, J., Öllinger, M., Folta-Schoofs, K., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2018). Feelings-of-warmth increase more abruptly for verbal riddles solved with in contrast to without Aha! experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(9), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01404
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25(6), 1534–1555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1534
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
Koğar, H. (2019). Belirti Tarama Listesi’nin (SCL-90) geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması: Mokken ölçekleme analizleri [The validity and reliability study of the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90): Mokken scale analysis]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma Ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 9(54), 689–705.
Köhler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. Routledge.
Köhler, W. (1959). Gestalt psychology today. American Psychologist, 14, 427–434.
Kounios, J., Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., Bowden, E. M., & Jung-beeman, M. (2008). The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.013
Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2009). The Aha! moment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01638.x
Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 71–93.
Laukkonen, R. E., Ingledew, D. J., Grimmer, H. J., Schooler, J. W., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Getting a grip on insight: Real-time and embodied Aha experiences predict correct solutions. Cognition and Emotion, 35(5), 918–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1908230
Löckenhoff, C. E. (2018). Aging and decision-making: A conceptual framework for future research—A mini-review. Gerontology, 64(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1159/000485247
MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., & Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information processing and insight: A process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(1), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.176
Maier, N. R. F. (1930). Reasoning in humans. I. On direction. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10(2), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073232
Maier, N. R. F. (1940). The behavior mechanisms concerned with problem solving. Psychological Review, 47(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058466
Mathes, B., Khalaidovski, K., Wienke, A. S., Schmiedt-Fehr, C., & Basar-Eroglu, C. (2016). Maturation of the P3 and concurrent oscillatory processes during adolescence. Clinical Neurophysiology, 127(7), 2599–2609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2016.04.019
Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197722
Moroshkina, N. V., Savina, A. I., Ammalainen, A. V., Gershkovich, V. A., Zverev, I. V., & Lvova, O. V. (2022). How difficult was it? Metacognitive judgments about problems and their solutions after the Aha moment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(June), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911904
Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. Keane & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1–44). Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. In Science & Education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9449-5
Öllinger, M., Jones, G., Faber, A. H., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Cognitive mechanisms of insight: The role of heuristics and representational change in solving the eight-coin problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029194
Öllinger, M., Jones, G., & Knoblich, G. (2014). The dynamics of search, impasse, and representational change provide a coherent explanation of difficulty in the nine-dot problem. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78(2), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0494-8
Ormerod, T. C., Fioratou, E., Chronicle, E. P., & MacGregor, J. N. (2006). The remnants of insight. In 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1893–1898).
Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N., & Chronicle, E. P. (2002). Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28(4), 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.791
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Kounios, J., Bowden, E., & Beeman, M. (2016). Insight solutions are correct more often than analytic solutions. Thinking and Reasoning, 22(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1141798
Sastre-Buades, A., Ochoa, S., Lorente-Rovira, E., Barajas, A., Grasa, E., Sergio, S., Metacognition, S., Group, S., Barrig, M. L., Sanitari, P., & Joan, S. (2021). Jumping to conclusions and suicidal behavior in depression and psychosis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 137, 514–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.03.024
Savinova, A., & Korovkin, S. (2022). Surprise! Why insightful solution is pleasurable. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040098
Spiridonov, V., Loginov, N., & Ardislamov, V. (2021). Dissociation between the subjective experience of insight and performance in the CRA paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 33(6–7), 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1900198
Strickland, T., Wiley, J., & Ohlsson, S. (2022). Hints and the Aha-accuracy effect in insight problem solving. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science, 44, 44.
Stuyck, H., Aben, B., Cleeremans, A., & Van den Bussche, E. (2021). The Aha! moment: Is insight a different form of problem solving? Consciousness and Cognition, 90, 103055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103055
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
Threadgold, E., Marsh, J. E., & Ball, L. J. (2018). Normative data for 84 UK English rebus puzzles. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02513
Topolinski, S., & Reber, R. (2010). Gaining insight into the “Aha” experience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 402–405.
Unity Technologies. (n.d.). Unity. Unity. Retrieved 1 Dec 2020, from https://unity.com/
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, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01424
Webb, M. E., Cropper, S. J., & Little, D. R. (2019). “Aha!” is stronger when preceded by a “huh?”: Presentation of a solution affects ratings of aha experience conditional on accuracy. Thinking and Reasoning, 25(3), 324–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1523807
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
Wertheimer, M. (2020). Productive thinking. In V. Sarris, (Ed.), Springer Nature. (Original work published 1945)
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Contributed to conception and design: GÖA, SC. Contributed to acquisition of data: GÖA. Contributed to analysis and interpretation of data: GÖA, SC. Drafted and/or revised the article: GÖA, SC. Approved the submitted version for publication: GÖA, SC.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Ethical approval
The Research Ethics Committee of Istanbul University Social and Human Sciences approved the study protocol (E-35980450-663.05-74878).
Informed consent
All participants provided informed consent in both sessions.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Özen-Akın, G., Cinan, S. The lack of Aha! experience can be dependent on the problem difficulty. Psychological Research 88, 1522–1539 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01960-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01960-x