Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems

  • Edward M. BowdenEmail author
  • Mark Jung-BeemanEmail author


We have developed and tested 144 compound remote associate problems. Across eight experiments, 289 participants were given four time limits (2 sec, 7 sec, 15 sec, or 30 sec) for solving each problem. This paper provides a brief overview of the problems and normative data regarding the percentage of participants solving, and mean time-to-solution for, each problem at each time limit. These normative data can be used in selecting problems on the basis of difficulty or mean time necessary for reaching a solution.


Target Word Problem Word Compound Word fMRI Experiment Insight Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ansburg, P. I. (2000). Individual differences in problem solving via insight.Current Psychology,19, 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baba, Y. (1982). An analysis of creativity by means of the remote associates test for adults revised in Japanese (Jarat Form-A).Japanese Journal of Psychology,52, 330–336.Google Scholar
  3. Beeman, M. J., &Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems.Memory & Cognition,28, 1231–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beeman, M. J., Bowden, E. M., & Haberman, J. (2002, April).The Aha!experience and semantic activation in the cerebral hemispheres. Poster presented at 9th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  5. Beeman, M. J., Haberman, J., & Bowden, E. M. (2002, November).fMRI signal at the moment of insight, during insight-like verbal problems. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Kansas City.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Zur, H. (1989). Automatic and directed search processes in solving simple semantic-memory problems.Memory & Cognition,17, 617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowden, E. M., &Jung-Beeman, M. J. (2003). Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 730–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthazard, C., &Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery.Cognitive Psychology,22, 72–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dallob, P. I., & Dominowski, R. L. (1993, April).Erroneous solutions to verbal insight problems: Effects of highlighting critical material. Paper presented at the 73rd annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  11. Dorfman, J., Shames, V. A., &Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). Intuition, incubation, and insight: Implicit cognition in problem solving. In G. D. M. Underwood (Ed.),Implicit cognition (pp. 257–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, E. M. (1999). Subclinical inclination toward manic-depression and creative performance on the Remote Associates Test.Personality & Individual Differences,27, 1273–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton, M. A. (1982). “Jamaicanizing” the Mednick Remote Associates Test of creativity.Perceptual & Motor Skill,55, 321–322.Google Scholar
  14. Kounios, J., Beeman, M. J., Liu, S., Frymiare, J., Angelakis, E., & Stathopoulou, T. (2003, March).The spark of insight: Electrophysiological correlates of the Aha!experience in problem solving. Poster presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, New York.Google Scholar
  15. McFarlin, D. B., &Blascovich, J. (1984). On the Remote Associates Test (RAT) as an alternative to illusory performance feedback—A methodological note.Basic & Applied Social Psychology,5, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process.Psychological Review,69, 220–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mednick, S. A. (1968). Remote Associates Test.Journal of Creative Behavior,2, 213–214.Google Scholar
  18. Mednick, S. A., &Mednick, M. P. (1967).Examiner’s manual: Remote Associates Test. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Mikulincer, M., &Sheffi, E. (2000). Adult attachment style and cognitive reactions to positive affect: A test of mental categorization and creative problem solving.Motivation & Emotion,24, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nevo, B. &Levin, I. (1978). Remote Associates Test: Assessment of creativity in Hebrew.Megamot,24, 87–98.Google Scholar
  21. 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. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Shames, V. A. (1994).Is there such a thing as implicit problem-solving? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, S. M., &Blankenship, S. E. (1989). Incubation effects.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,27, 311–314.Google Scholar
  24. Vohs, K. D., &Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,81, 1103–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanston

Personalised recommendations