The lack of Aha! experience can be dependent on the problem difficulty

Gaye Özen-Akın, Sevtap Cinan
{"title":"The lack of Aha! experience can be dependent on the problem difficulty","authors":"Gaye Özen-Akın, Sevtap Cinan","doi":"10.1007/s00426-024-01960-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":501681,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01960-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
缺乏 "啊哈!"体验可能取决于问题的难度
以往关于问题难度如何影响洞察力问题的解决方案类型的研究得出了相互矛盾的结论。因此,我们旨在研究问题难度在问题难度间和问题难度内对解题类型的影响。为此,我们使用了原始的 8 枚硬币和 9 点问题,以及通过使用 "移除难度来源 "提示来改变其难度的四个提示版本。这些操作是根据表象变化理论中的约束放松和块分解假设进行的。研究共涉及 165 名参与者,他们分五组(每组 33 人)接受测试,每组接受一个原始问题或提示问题。问题解决者在正确解决问题后,根据他们在解决问题过程中是否有 "啊哈!"体验,对他们的解决方案类型(洞察力解决方案或非洞察力解决方案)进行分类。根据参与者的自我报告,在所有组别中,56.1% 正确解决的洞察力问题是在解决过程中获得了 "啊哈!"体验,这意味着正确的解决方案不应等同于洞察力。随后,比较了原始问题(问题间难度)和每个难度级别的提示版本问题(问题内难度)的解题类型率。问题间难度比较表明,较容易的 8 枚硬币问题比较难的 9 点问题更有可能通过洞察力得到解决。与此相反,问题内部的难度比较表明,较难的问题更有可能通过洞察力来解决。这些研究结果表明,在今后的洞察力研究中应考虑问题的难度。最后,对认知-情感维度对解题类型的预测价值进行的单独分析表明,在对问题难度进行调整后,在两个问题中突然性得分较高的解题者产生洞察力解题的概率明显更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Action inhibition in a sport-specific paradigm: examining the limits of action control in basketball Recurrent involuntary memories and mind wandering are related but distinct. Music in the eye of the beholder: a pupillometric study on preferred background music, attentional state, and arousal. Impact of relative and absolute values on orienting attention in time The lack of Aha! experience can be dependent on the problem difficulty
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1