Subjective assessments for solving “insight” tasks
- Authors: Vlasova A.S.1, Levshina M.A.2, Shipilova E.S.1, Kosolapova D.V.1
-
Affiliations:
- Lomonosov Moscow State University
- Moscow State Linguistic University
- Issue: Vol 45, No 1 (2024)
- Pages: 46-52
- Section: Cognitive psychology
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/0205-9592/article/view/256438
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0205959224010041
- ID: 256438
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Abstract
This work attempted to study abstract assessments of subjects associated with classical “insight” tasks. The subjects were asked to solve three insight problems (“The Match Problem”, “Runner”, “9 Dots”) and one analytical problem (“Father and Sons”). After making a decision, it was necessary to give a measurement assessment of the solution found (this was done using insight or was non-insight). It was expected that when solving “insight” problems, subjects would more often describe their solution as insightful. The results obtained refuted the hypothesis. Subjects more often assessed the solution to insight problems as having been found as a result of an analytical solution “step by step”. Based on the data obtained, it is assumed that the subjective assessment reflects the general characteristics of the decision process.
Keywords
Full Text
About the authors
A. S. Vlasova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Author for correspondence.
Email: arina.vlasova@student.msu.ru
Department of General Psychology
Russian Federation, 125009, Moscow, Mokhovaya str., 11, bldg. 9M. A. Levshina
Moscow State Linguistic University
Email: a4891632@yandex.ru
Russian Federation, 119034, Moscow, Ostozhenka str., 38, bldg. 1
E. S. Shipilova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Email: shipilova_erika@mail.ru
Faculty of Psychology, Department of Psychology of Education and Pedagogy
Russian Federation, 125009, Moscow, Mokhovaya str., 11, bldg. 9D. V. Kosolapova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Email: semi-dariya@yandex.ru
Department of Neuro- and Pathopsychology
Russian Federation, 125009, Moscow, Mokhovaya str., 11, bldg. 9References
- Korovkin S.Ju., Vladimirov I.Ju., Savinova A.D. Dinamika zagruzki rabochej pamjati pri reshenii insajtnyh zadach. Rossijskij zhurnal kognitivnoj nauki. 2014. № 4. P. 67–81.
- Ljubart T., Mushiru K. Tordzhman S., Zenasni F. Psihologija kreativnosti. Moscow: Kognito-Centr, 2009.
- Moroshkina N.V., Ammalajnen A.V., Savina A.I. V pogone za insajtom: sovremennye podhody i metody izmerenija insajta v kognitivnoj psihologii. Psihologicheskie issledovanija. 2020. V. 13. № 74. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.54359/ps.v13i74.163
- Ponomarev Ja.A. Psihologija tvorchestva. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. 304 p.
- Spiridonov V., Lifanova S.S. Insajt i mental’nye operatory, ili mozhno li poshagovo reshit’ insajtnuju zadachu. Psihologija. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki. 2013. V. 10. № 3. P. 54–63.
- Bowden E.M. The effect of reportable and unreportable hints on anagram solution and the Aha! Experi- ence. Consciousness and Cognition. 1997. V. 6. № 4. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1997.0325
- Bowden E., Jung-beeman M., Fleck J., Kounios J. New approaches to demystifying insight. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2005. V. 7. № 9. P. 322–328. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.012
- Danek A., Fraps T., Von Müller A., Grothe B., Öllinger M. It’s a kind of magic — what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving. Frontiers in psychology. 2014. № 5. P. 1–11. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01408
- Danek A., Wiley J. What about false insights? deconstructing the aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately. Frontiers in psychology. 2017. № 7. P. 1–14. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077
- Ellis J., Glaholt M., Reingold E. Eye movements reveal solution knowledge prior to insight. Consciousness and cognition. 2011. V. 3. № 20. P. 768–776. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.007
- Fedor A., Szathmáry E., Öllinger M. Problem solving stages in the five square problem. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. V. 6. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015. 01050
- Hedne M.R., Norman E., Metcalfe J. Intuitive feelings of warmth and confidence in insight and noninsight problem solving of magic tricks. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016. V. 7. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016. 01314
- Jung-Beeman M., Bowden E., Haberman J., Frymiare J., Arambel-Liu S., Greenblatt R., Reber P., Kounios J. Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with Insight. PLoS Biology. 2004. V. 2. № 4. P. 500–510.
- Knoblich G., Ohlsson S., Haider H., Rhenius D. Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition. 1999. № 25. P. 1534–1555. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6. 1534
- Metcalfe J., Wiebe D. Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition. 1987. V. 15. № 3. P. 238–246.
- Maier N.R. Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of comparative Psychology. 1931. V. 12. № 2. P. 181–194. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071361
- Novick L.R., Sherman S.J. On the Nature of Insight Solutions: Evidence from Skill Differences in Anagram Solution. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. 2003. V. 56. № 2. P. 351–382. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000288
- Sprugnoli G., Simone R., Emmendorfer A., Alessandro R., Liew S., Tatti E., Di Lorenzo G., Pascual-leone A., Santarnecchi E. Neural correlates of Eureka moment. Intelligence. 2017. № 62. P. 99–118. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.03.004
