Abstract
Research on insight—the phenomenon of suddenly solving an apparently intransigent problem—has been hampered because stimulus problems have been few, ad hoc, heterogeneous, and difficult to solve. Responding to the need for a larger pool of problems of a similar type and of varying level of difficulty, we report an experiment testing the validity of rebuses as insight problems. A rebus combines verbal and visual clues to a common phrase, such as PAINS (“growing pains”). Solving a rebus requires breaking implicit assumptions of normal reading, similar to the restructuring required in insight. We hypothesized that, the more implicit assumptions are involved, the more difficult the solution. The results of a two-part experiment supported the hypothesis, with participants solving more problems involving one assumption than they did problems involving two or more. Also, rebus performance correlated significantly with self-rated insight and with scores on remote associates, but not with general verbal ability. The findings suggest that rebus puzzles may be a useful source of theoretically grounded insight problems.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ansburg, P. I. (2000). Individual differences in problem solving via insight. Current Psychology, 19, 143–146.
Ansburg, P. I., & Dominowski, R. L. (2000). Promoting insightful problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 30–60.
Ash, I. K., & Wiley, J. (2006). The nature of restructuring in insight: An individual-differences approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 66–73.
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.
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003a). Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 730–737.
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003b). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 634–639.
Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthazard, C. [G.], & Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 72–110.
Chronicle, E. P., MacGregor, J. N., & Ormerod, T. C. (2004). What makes an insight problem? The roles of heuristics, goal conception, and solution recoding in knowledge-lean problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 14–27.
Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2006, September). An experimental test of rebus puzzles as insight problems. Paper presented at the Joint New Zealand Psychological Society/Australian Psychological Society Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Dallob, P. I., & Dominowski, R. L. (1993). Erroneous solutions to verbal insight problems: Effects of highlighting critical material. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1996). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 33–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5, Whole No. 270).
Gilhooly, K. J., & Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 279–302.
Jacobs, M. K., & Dominowski, R. L. (1981). Learning to solve insight problems. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 171–174.
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, & Cognition, 30, 3–13.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2005). Remote Associates Test. Online document retrieved on March 18, 2005, from socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/ RATest.htm.
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 1534–1555.
Lung, C.-T., & Dominowski, R. L. (1985). Effects of strategy instructions and practice on nine-dot problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 804–811.
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, & Cognition, 27, 176–201.
Mayer, R. E. (1996). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered questions. In R. J. Steinberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.
Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15, 238–246.
Murray, M. A., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). Attention and working memory in insight problem-solving. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1571–1575). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. T. Keane & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (Vol. 1, pp. 1–44). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N., & Chronicle, E. P. (2002). Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 791–799.
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. 97–134). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Smith, S. M. (1996). Getting into and out of mental ruts: A theory of fixation, incubation and insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 229–251). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1989). Incubation effects. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 311–314.
Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 61–87.
Weisberg, R. W. (1996). Prolegomena to theories of insight in problem solving: A taxonomy of problems. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 157–196). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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, 169–192.
Wiley, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 26, 716–730.
Williams, B. R., Hultsch, D. F., Strauss, E. H., Hunter, M. A., & Tannock, R. (2005). Inconsistency in reaction time across the life span. Neuropsychology, 19, 88–96.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research was partially supported by a research grant from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada to the first author and a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to both authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MacGregor, J.N., Cunningham, J.B. Rebus puzzles as insight problems. Behav Res 40, 263–268 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.263
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.263