Memory & Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 238–246 | Cite as

Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving

  • Janet Metcalfe
  • David Wiebe


People’s metacognitions, both before and during problem solving, may be of importance in motivating and guiding problem-solving behavior. These metacognitions could also be diagnostic for distinguishing among different classes of problems, each perhaps controlled by different cognitive processes. In the present experiments, intuitions on classic insight problems were compared with those on noninsight and algebra problems. The findings were as follows: (1) subjective feeling of knowing predicted performance on algebra problems but not on insight problems; (2) subjects’ expectations of performance greatly exceeded their actual performance, especially on insight problems; (3) normative predictions provided a better estimate of individual performance than did subjects’ own predictions, especially on the insight problems; and, most importantly, (4) the patterns-of-warmth ratings, which reflect subjects’ feelings of approaching solution, differed for insight and noninsight problems. Algebra problems and noninsight problems showed a more incremental pattern over the course of solving than did insight problems. In general, then, the data indicated that noninsight problems were open to accurate predictions of performance, whereas insight problems were opaque to such predictions. Also, the phenomenology of insight-problem solution was characterized by a sudden, unforeseen flash of illumination. We propose that the difference in phenomenology accompanying insight and noninsight problem solving, as empirically demonstrated here, be used to define insight.


  1. Adams, J. L. (1979).Conceptual blockbusting. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  2. Arieti, S. (1976).Creativity: The magic synthesis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Bergson, H. (1902).An introduction to metaphysics. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  4. Bruner, J. (1966).On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, J. E., &Sternberg, R. J. (1984). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness.Gifted Child Quarterly,28, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeBono, E. (1967).The use of lateral thinking. New York: PenguinGoogle Scholar
  7. DeBono, E. (1969).The mechanism of mind. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Dominowski, R. L. (1981). Comment on an examination of the alleged role of ’fixation’ in the solution of ’insight’ problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving.Psychological Monographs,58(5, Whole No. 270).Google Scholar
  10. Ellen, P. (1982). Direction, past experience, and hints in creative problem solving: Reply to Weisberg and Alba.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fixx, J. F. (1972).More games for the superintelligent. New York: Popular Library.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, M. (1978).Aha! Insight. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  13. Gruneberg, M. M., &Monks, J. (1974). Feeling of knowing In cued recall.Acta Psychologica,38, 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hart, J. T. (1967). Memory and the memory-monitoring process.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,6, 685–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hofstadter, D. R. (1980).Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  16. Karat, J. (1982). A model of problem solving with incomplete constraint knowledge.Cognitive Psychology,14, 538–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koestler, A. (1977).The act of creation. London: Picadoo.Google Scholar
  18. Levine, M. (1986).Principles of effective problem solving. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Stonybrook.Google Scholar
  19. Lichtenstein, S., Fischoff, B., &Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state to the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.),Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristitcs and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: Monitoring future recallability during study.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 756–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanizataon in problem solving.Psychological Monographs,54(6, Whole No. 248).Google Scholar
  22. Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness.Journal of Campara-tive Psychology,12, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. E. (1983).Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: FreemanGoogle Scholar
  24. Metcalfe, J. (1986a). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory. & Cognition,12, 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Metcalfe, J. (1986b). Premonitions of insight predict impending error.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 623–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling of knowing prediction.Psychological Bulletin,95, 109–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson, T. O. (1986). ROC curves and measures of discrimination accuracy: A reply to Swets.Psychologtcal Bulletin,100, 128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson, T. O., Leonesio, R. J., Landwehr, R. S., &Narens, L. (1986). A comparison of three predictors of an individual’s memory performance: The individual’s feeling of knowing vs. the normative feeling of knowing vs. base-rate item difficulty.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, T. O., Leonesio, R. J., Shimamura, A. P., Landwehr, R. F., &Narens, L. (1982). Overlearning and the feeling of knowing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson, T. O., &Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 338–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polanyi, M. (1958).Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Polya, G. (1957),How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Restle, F., &Davis, J. H. (1962). Success and speed of problem solwng by ~ndividuals and groups.Psychological Review,69, 520–536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schacter, D. L. (1983). Feeling of knowing in episodic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon, H. (1977).Models of discovery. Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Reidel.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, H. (1979).Models of thought. New Haven Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Simon, H., Newell, A., &Shaw, J. C. (1979). The process of creative thinking. In H. Simon (Ed),Models of thought (pp. 144–174). New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Sternberg, R. J. (1985).Beyond IQ. Cambridge, MA. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sternberg, R. J. (1986).Intelligence applied. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Javonovich.Google Scholar
  40. Sternberg, R. J., &Davidson, J. E. (1982, June). The nund of the puzzler.Psychology Today,16, 37–44.Google Scholar
  41. Travers, K. J., Dalton, L. C., Bruner, V. F., &Taylor, A. R. (1976).Using advanced algebra. Toronto: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  42. Wallas, G. (1926).The art of thought. New York. Harcourt.Google Scholar
  43. Weisberg, R. W., &Alba, J. W. (1981a). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weisberg, R. W., &Alba, J. W. (1981b). Gestalt theory, insight and past experience: Reply to Dominowski.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weisberg, R. W., &Alba, J. W. (1982). Problem solwng is not like perception: More on gestalt theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 326–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Metcalfe
    • 1
  • David Wiebe
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIndiana UmversgyBloomington
  2. 2.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations