Cognitive Abilities Involved in Insight Problem Solving: An Individual Differences Model

This study investigated individual differences in cognitive abilities that contribute to solving insight problems. A model is proposed describing three types of cognitive ability that contribute independently to insight: convergent thinking, divergent thinking, and breaking frame. The model was tested in a large sample (N = 108) by regressing insight problem solving performance on measures of these three abilities. This analysis demonstrated that all three abilities predicted insight independently. Convergent thinking was further broken down into verbal intelligence and working memory, which also predicted insight independently of each other and of divergent thinking and breaking frame. Finally, when pitted against noninsight problem solving as a predictor in regression, only insight problem solving was uniquely associated with divergent thinking and breaking frame. The model is suggested as a potentially useful taxonomy for the study of ill-defined problems and cognitive abilities.     

A Self‐Report Measure of Productive Thinking in Solving Insight Problems

There is broad agreement among executives on the importance of innovation and creativity in organizations. The paper aimed to provide information on the effectiveness of a new cognitive style inventory, the Productive‐Reproductive Thinking Inventory (P‐R), in identifying people with creative problem‐solving potential. Participants completed the P‐R Inventory, Kirton's Adaption‐Innovation Inventory (KAI), the Assimilator‐Explorer Inventory, self‐rating of insight problem‐solving, and a battery of insight problem‐solving tasks under controlled conditions. The P‐R scale was a significant predictor of problem‐solving performance and insight self‐ratings and correlated significantly with KAI and AE scores. In addition, the results supported distinguishing two types of reproductive thinking which are differentially associated with insight performance. The distinction was supported by confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation models. Using controlled conditions may limit the generality of the findings and further research should be carried out in applied settings. The P‐R inventory is short and easily administered and may provide HR professionals with a useful screening tool for assessing creative problem‐solving potential. The measure differs from the KAI in several ways that may offer advantages for creativity researchers in that it is non‐proprietary, based on well‐established psychological constructs, and is more particularly applicable to insight problem‐solving.     

A Visual Representation to Quantitate,Diagnose, and Improve Creativity in Insight Problem Solving

A new visual representation for insight problems permits 22 new quantitative measures; which leads to a detailed diagnosis of a person's (or team's) creative weaknesses; which then leads to prescribing targeted, effective counter‐techniques for each weakness. Currently, only two measures are consistently used for insight problem solving: the number of problems solved and the time to solve the problems. These coarse measurements do not reveal the intricate dynamics of solving insight problems. Furthermore, four commonly used creativity measures (i.e., fluency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration) are often not applied to insight problems. This new visualization permits the easy application of all four creativity measures. I challenge creativity researchers to help determine which of the 22 proposed quantitative measures are the most diagnostic for insight problem solving in isolation and, in a weighted linear combination, which might yield an effective quotient (i.e., overall measure) of insight problem solving ability.     

Insight versus analysis: Evidence for diverse methods in problem solving

Since the Gestalt psychologists made the distinction approximately 100 years ago, psychologists have differentiated between solving problems through analysis versus insight. The present paper presents evidence to support the idea that, rather than conceptualising insight versus analysis as distinct modes of solving problems, it is more useful to conceive of insight and analysis as two approaches within a set of possible solving methods. In the present research, 60 participants solved insight problems while thinking aloud, which provided evidence concerning the processes underlying problem solution. Comparison with performance of a nonverbalisation control group (n = 35) indicated no negative effects of thinking aloud on insight in problem solving. The results supported the idea that various methods are utilised in solving insight problems. The “classic” impasse–restructuring–insight sequence occurred in only a small minority of solutions. A number of other solution methods were found, ranging from relatively direct applications of knowledge, to various heuristic methods, to restructuring arising from new information gleaned from a failed solution. It is concluded that there is not a sharp distinction between solving a problem through analysis versus insight, and implications of that conclusion are discussed.     

Verbalization and problem solving: Insight and spatial factors

Two groups of participants attempted eight examples of each of four different problem types formed by combining insight versus non‐insight and verbal versus spatial factors. The groups were given different verbalization instructions viz., Silent (N = 40) or Direct Concurrent (N = 40). There were significant differences between insight and non‐insight tasks and between spatial and verbal tasks in terms of solution rates and latencies. Significant interactions between the verbal versus spatial factor and verbalization condition on solution rates and latencies reflected a greater (negative) effect of verbalizing on spatial as against verbal problems. However, no significant interactions of the insight versus non‐insight factor with verbalization condition on solution rates or latencies were found. These results favoured the ‘business as usual’ view of insight problem solving as against the ‘special process’ view which predicted larger effects of verbalization for insight problems as against non‐insight problems.     

Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training

The purpose of this research was to investigate whether insight problem solving depends on domain‐specific or domain‐general problem‐solving skills, that is, whether people think in terms of conceptually different types of insight problems. In Study 1, participants sorted insight problems into categories. A cluster analysis revealed 4 main categories of insight problems: verbal, mathematical, spatial, and a combination of verbal or spatial. In Studies 2 and 3, participants received training in how to solve verbal, spatial, or mathematical problems, or all 3 types. They were taught that solutions to verbal insight problems lie in defining and analyzing the terms in the problem, solutions to mathematical insight problems lie in a novel approach to numbers, or solutions to spatial insight problems lie in removing a self‐imposed constraint. In both studies, the spatial trained group performed better than the verbal trained group on spatial problems but not on other types of problems. These findings are consistent with the idea that people mentally separate insight problems into distinct types. Implications for instruction in insight problem solving are discussed.     

The contributions of convergent thinking,divergent thinking,and schizotypy to solving insight and non-insight problems

The ability to generate diverse ideas (divergent thinking) is valuable in solving creative problems (e.g., insight problems); yet, however advantageous, this ability is insufficient to solve the problem alone and requires the ability to logically deduce an assessment of correctness of each solution (convergent thinking). Positive schizotypy may help isolate the aspects of divergent thinking prevalent in insight problem solving. Participants were presented with a measure of schizotypy (Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences), divergent and convergent thinking tasks, insight problems, and non-insight problems. We found no evidence for a relationship between schizotypy and insight problem solving. Relationships between divergent thinking and insight problem solving were also surprisingly weak; however, measures of convergent thinking had a stronger relationship with problem solving. These results suggest that convergent thinking is more important than divergent thinking in problem solving.     

The development of creative cognition across adolescence: distinct trajectories for insight and divergent thinking

We examined developmental trajectories of creative cognition across adolescence. Participants (N = 98), divided into four age groups (12/13 yrs, 15/16 yrs, 18/19 yrs, and 25–30 yrs), were subjected to a battery of tasks gauging creative insight (visual; verbal) and divergent thinking (verbal; visuo‐spatial). The two older age groups outperformed the two younger age groups on insight tasks. The 25–30‐year‐olds outperformed the two youngest age groups on the originality measure of verbal divergent thinking. No age‐group differences were observed for verbal divergent thinking fluency and flexibility. On divergent thinking in the visuo‐spatial domain, however, only 15/16‐year‐olds outperformed 12/13‐year‐olds; a model with peak performance for 15/16‐years‐old showed the best fit. The results for the different creativity processes are discussed in relation to cognitive and related neurobiological models. We conclude that mid‐adolescence is a period of not only immaturities but also of creative potentials in the visuo‐spatial domain, possibly related to developing control functions and explorative behavior.     

Improving insight and non‐insight problem solving with brief interventions

Developing brief training interventions that benefit different forms of problem solving is challenging. In earlier research, Chrysikou (2006) showed that engaging in a task requiring generation of alternative uses of common objects improved subsequent insight problem solving. These benefits were attributed to a form of implicit transfer of processing involving enhanced construction of impromptu, on‐the‐spot or ‘ad hoc’ goal‐directed categorizations of the problem elements. Following this, it is predicted that the alternative uses exercise should benefit abilities that govern goal‐directed behaviour, such as fluid intelligence and executive functions. Similarly, an indirect intervention – self‐affirmation (SA) – that has been shown to enhance cognitive and executive performance after self‐regulation challenge and when under stereotype threat, may also increase adaptive goal‐directed thinking and likewise should bolster problem‐solving performance. In Experiment 1, brief single‐session interventions, involving either alternative uses generation or SA, significantly enhanced both subsequent insight and visual–spatial fluid reasoning problem solving. In Experiment 2, we replicated the finding of benefits of both alternative uses generation and SA on subsequent insight problem‐solving performance, and demonstrated that the underlying mechanism likely involves improved executive functioning. Even brief cognitive– and social–psychological interventions may substantially bolster different types of problem solving and may exert largely similar facilitatory effects on goal‐directed behaviours.     

The Effects of Zhongyong Thinking Priming on Creative Problem‐Solving

Zhongyong thinking is a common approach adopted by Chinese people to solve problems encountered in life and work. Based on the four modes of zhongyong thinking proposed by Pang (Social Sciences in China, 1, 1980, 75), this study chooses the “neither A nor B” form, which represents the “mean” (中) characteristics of zhongyong thinking, called eclectic thinking, and the “both A and B” form, which reflects the “harmony” (和) feature, called integrated thinking. This study primed eclectic thinking and integrated thinking, respectively, through self‐compiled problem situations, and 150 college students and postgraduates students were the participants. Experiment 1 explored the role of the priming of zhongyong thinking in three classic creative thinking tasks: a divergent thinking test, remote association test, and insight problem‐solving test. Experiment 2 further examined the effect of priming of zhongyong thinking on “market investment problems” with higher ecological validity. The findings show that priming integrated thinking can improve remote associates test performance and promote creative solutions to market investment problems, but there is no significant impact on the scores of divergent thinking test and insight problem‐solving; priming eclectic thinking has no significant impact on any of the subsequent creative tasks. This study shows that integrated thinking primes cognitive processing related to information association and information integration, promoting subsequent creative tasks.     

Working memory and insight in the nine-dot problem

In the present article, we examine the contribution of working memory (WM) to solution of the nine-dot problem, a classic insight problem. Prior research has generally demonstrated a limited role for WM in the solution of insight problems, which are typically assumed to be solved without conscious planning. However, MacGregor, Ormerod, and Chronicle (2001) proposed an information-processing model that solves the nine-dot problem by relying on a visual WM mechanism, which they term lookahead. In the present research, we examine whether performance on the nine-dot problem is indeed predicted by WM capacity. The results indicated that spatial WM capacity predicted the tendency to draw lines outside the configuration of dots and predicted the solution on a hint-aided version of the problem. Furthermore, within those solving the problem, higher spatial WM capacity was also related to faster solutions. The results support the information-processing model and suggest a more essential role for WM and planning in insight problem solving than has previously been acknowledged.     

Individual problem‐solving styles and attitudes toward divergent thinking before and after training

ABSTRACT:

Afield experiment was conducted to examine the mediating effect of individual creative problem‐solving style on the impact of training in creative thinking. This intensive hands‐on training emphasized a specific three‐phase process which synchronizes divergence and convergence in problem‐finding, problem‐solving, and implementation. Two attitudes associated with divergent thinking were measured before and after training. The sample was comprised of a mixture of organizational members representing both managers (n = 90) and non‐managers (n = 66) and a variety of functional specialties, hierarchical levels, and types of business organizations. The most significant finding was that the optimizer style of creative problem‐solving improved more than the other three styles (generator, conceptualizer, and implementor) on measures of both creative thinking attitudes.     

Effects of Group Training in Problem‐Solving Style on Future Problem‐Solving Performance

Seventy‐five participants from one suburban high school formed 21 teams with 3–4 members each for the Future Problem Solving Program International (FPSPI). Students were selected to participate in either the regular FPSPI or an enhanced FPSPI, where multiple group training activities grounded in problem‐solving style were incorporated into a 9‐week treatment period. An ANCOVA procedure was used to examine the difference in team responses to a creative problem‐solving scenario for members of each group, after accounting for initial differences in creative problem‐solving performance, years of experience in FPSPI, and creative thinking related to fluency, flexibility, and originality. The ANCOVA resulted in a significant difference in problem‐solving performance in favor of students in the treatment group (F(1, 57) = 8.21, p = .006, partial eta squared = .126, medium), while there were no significant differences in years of experience or creativity scores. This result led researchers to conclude that students in both groups had equivalent creative ability and that participation in the group activities emphasizing problem‐solving style significantly contributed to creative performance.     

The developmental relations between spatial cognition and mathematics in primary school children

Spatial thinking is an important predictor of mathematics. However, existing data do not determine whether all spatial sub‐domains are equally important for mathematics outcomes nor whether mathematics–spatial associations vary through development. This study addresses these questions by exploring the developmental relations between mathematics and spatial skills in children aged 6–10 years (N = 155). We extend previous findings by assessing and comparing performance across Uttal et al.'s (2013), four spatial sub‐domains. Overall spatial skills explained 5%–14% of the variation across three mathematics performance measures (standardized mathematics skills, approximate number sense and number line estimation skills), beyond other known predictors of mathematics including vocabulary and gender. Spatial scaling (extrinsic‐static sub‐domain) was a significant predictor of all mathematics outcomes, across all ages, highlighting its importance for mathematics in middle childhood. Other spatial sub‐domains were differentially associated with mathematics in a task‐ and age‐dependent manner. Mental rotation (intrinsic‐dynamic skills) was a significant predictor of mathematics at 6 and 7 years only which suggests that at approximately 8 years of age there is a transition period regarding the spatial skills that are important for mathematics. Taken together, the results support the investigation of spatial training, particularly targeting spatial scaling, as a means of improving both spatial and mathematical thinking.     

Individual differences in problem solving via insight

The purpose of the present work was to identify general problem solving skills that underlie the production of insight. One hundred and eighteen participants completed insight problems, analogies, series-completion problems and the Remote Associates Test. Scores on all measures were related to performance on the insight problems (Pearson r's ranged from .31 to .47, p < .008). These findings are consistent with the notion that the abilities to apprehend relations and fluency of thought are involved in insightful problem solving.     

Individual differences in problem solving via insight

The purpose of the present work was to identify general problem solving skills that underlie the production of insight. One hundred and eighteen participants completed insight problems, analogies, series-completion problems and the Remote Associates Test. Scores on all measures were related to performance on the insight problems (Pearson r's ranged from .31 to .47, p < .008). These findings are consistent with the notion that the abilities to apprehend relations and fluency of thought are involved in insightful problem solving.     

Categories of insight and their correlates: An exploration of relationships among classic‐type insight problems,rebus puzzles,remote associates and esoteric analogies

A central question in creativity concerns how insightful ideas emerge. Anecdotal examples of insightful scientific and technical discoveries include Goodyear's discovery of the vulcanization of rubber, and Mendeleev's realization that there may be gaps as he tried to arrange the elements into the Periodic Table. Although most people would regard these discoveries as insightful, cognitive psychologists have had difficulty in agreeing on whether such ideas resulted from insights or from conventional problem solving processes. One area of wide agreement among psychologists is that insight involves a process of restructuring. If this view is correct, then understanding insight and its role in problem solving will depend on a better understanding of restructuring and the characteristics that describe it. This article proposes and tests a preliminary classification of insight problems based on several restructuring characteristics: the need to redefine spatial assumptions, the need to change defined forms, the degree of misdirection involved, the difficulty in visualizing a possible solution, the number of restructuring sequences in the problem, and the requirement for figure‐ground type reversals. A second purpose of the study was to compare performance on classic spatial insight problems with two types of verbal tests that may be related to insight, the Remote Associates Test (RAT), and rebus puzzles. In doing so, we report on the results of a survey of 172 business students at the University of Waikato in New Zealand who completed classic‐type insight, RAT and rebus problems.     

Working Memory Capacity and Self‐Explanation Strategy Use Provide Additive Problem‐Solving Benefits

The present study examined the impact of working memory capacity (WMC) on college students' ability to solve probability problems while using a self‐explanation strategy. Participants learned to solve probability problems in one of three conditions: a backward‐faded self‐explanation condition, an example problem pairs self‐explanation condition, or a control (no self‐explanation) condition. Even when accounting for the impact of WMC, learning to problem‐solve using self‐explanation led to superior problem‐solving performance. Conditions that prompted self‐explanation during problem‐solving resulted in significantly better problem‐solving performance than the control condition. These findings provide insight into the influence of individual differences on problem‐solving when strategies are provided, as well as information about the effectiveness of the self‐explanation strategy during mathematical problem‐solving. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Metaphors and creative thinking

This study examined how working memory plays different roles in open-ended versus closed-ended creative problem-solving processes, as represented by divergent thinking tests and insight problem-solving tasks. With respect to the analysis of different task demands and the framework of dual-process theories, the hypothesis was that the idea generation in a divergent thinking test relies more on associative, effortless system 1 processing, but insight problem solving requires rule-based, resource-limited system 2 processing, in addition to system 1 processing. Since system 1 was suggested to be more active in resource deprivation conditions, Experiment 1 adopted the dual-task paradigm, which increased participants' working memory load. The results showed that divergent thinking performance was enhanced and insight problem-solving performance was hindered. Experiment 2 using the individual differences approach found that individuals' working memory capacity correlated with insight problem solving but not with divergent thinking performance, indicating a possible involvement of system 2 processing in insight problem solving. These findings suggested that open-ended and closed-ended creative problem solving involve different processes and helped to clarify some past inconsistencies when considering the relationship of factors with creativity.