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.     

记忆的顿悟优势效应

记忆的顿悟优势效应指, 与加工非顿悟问题相比, 加工顿悟问题能够产生更优的记忆保持量。该效应在顿悟的两种操作性定义以及不同实验材料中稳定出现。基于顿悟阶段观, 研究者提出两种理论解释记忆的顿悟优势效应的认知机制：认知的生成效应和表征转化理论认为, 顿悟加工过程中的认知努力、适当迁移加工以及顿悟的表征转换加工促进记忆的保持效果; 情绪的“啊哈”体验理论认为, 加工顿悟问题后的情绪对后续的信息提取具有促进作用。未来的研究可从优化顿悟的指标、巩固记忆的顿悟优势效应、评估其持续性以及更加系统探讨记忆的顿悟优势效应的认知机制等四个方面展开。     

顿悟体验的特性、结构和功能基础

顿悟体验是伴随顿悟问题解决过程的心理和现象学体验,主要包含伴随题解闪现的啊哈体验和因思维定势自动激活而催生的僵局阶段体验。现有研究显示,顿悟体验可能是多类认知与情绪要素构成,兼具认知和情绪加工特性的多维复合体。加工流畅性可部分解释顿悟体验的产生机制,杏仁核、眶额区和脑岛等情绪和奖赏加工的脑区则可能是其脑功能基础。未来须用多元方法从新旧交替视角深化两阶段顿悟体验的研究。     

New interpretative styles: Progress or contamination? Psychoanalysis and phenomenological psychopathology1

Psychoanalysis has started to recoup, often quite implicitly, a more phenomenological stance, ever since psychoanalysts have started working with borderline and psychotic patients. As many of these patients have commonly been through traumatic experiences, psychoanalysts have been using an approach that questions the role of traditional psychoanalytical interpretation and pays more attention to the patient's inner conscious experiences; this approach is characteristic of a specifi c form of contemporary psychiatry: phenomenological psychopathology, founded by Karl Jaspers in 1913 and developed into a form of psychotherapy by Ludwig Binswanger, with his Daseinsanalyse. If what we could call a phenomenological ‘temptation’ has been spreading over psychoanalysis, so too has a psychoanalytical ‘temptation’ always been present in phenomenological psychopathology. In fact, even though this branch of psychiatry has led us towards a deeper understanding of the characteristics of psychotic being‐in‐the‐world, its therapeutic applications have never been adequately formalised, much less have they evolved into a specifi c technique or a structured psychotherapeutic approach. Likewise, phenomenological psychotherapy has always held an anaclitic attitude towards psychoanalysis, accepting its procedures but refusing its theoretical basis because it is too close to that of the objectifying natural sciences. Psychoanalytic ‘temptation’ and phenomenological ‘temptation’ can thus be considered as two sides of the same coin and outline a trend in psychoanalytic and phenomenological literature which points out the fundamental role of the patient's inner conscious experiences in the treatment of borderline and psychotic patients.     

A few dissents from a magnificent piece of work

Despite enthusiastic agreement with most of Meehl’s paper, I dissent on “the idiographic problem” (as based on false premises), and on the goal of refuting theoretical propositions in soft psychology with any useful certainty (its generalizations are inescapably statistical, and Popper’s paradigm does not apply). Some implications for research, especially on psychoanalytic theory, are briefly outlined.     

Pavlovian george windholz (1931–2002): An exemplar of scholarly “observation and observation” and a critical contributor to psychology,and hence to behavioral neuroscience

Although most members of the Pavlovian Society properly focus their efforts on empirical research, the scholarly, critical conceptual contributions of some individuals are also relevant to progress in psychology and behavioral neuroscience. This paper discusses the contributions of the late George Windholz (often in collaboration with Peter Lamal) as: (a) a historian of Pavlov’s life, and work; (b) an analyst of priority issues in psychology as a science; (c) a refuter of myths perpetrated by psychology texts. These contributions provide an example of the scholarly form of the motto “observation and observation,” where the data used to test hypotheses comprise original documents (often in languages other than English) examined by the historian’s critical eye.     

"THEISTIC PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY": A THEOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE

I take the APA publication A Spiritual Strategy for Counseling and Psychotherapy (Richards and Bergin 2005), along with a devoted issue of Journal of Psychology and Theology (Nelson and Slife 2006), as a paradigmatic example of a trend. Other instances include the uncritical use of "Eastern" philosophy in Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology, almost normative appeal to the "Sacred" within the psychology of spirituality, talk of "God in the brain" within neurological research, the neologism entheogen referring to psychedelic drugs, and calls for new specializations such as neurotheology and theobiology. In response to the legitimate ethical requirements of respect and openness regarding clients' religious worldviews, the trend is to make God an essential component in psychological theory. The argument is that God is active in the universe and especially in human affairs to such an extent that any accurate account of strictly psychological matters, not just a comprehensive, interdisciplinary purview that could include a distinct theological dimension, must include God as an explanatory factor. Less nuanced than standard theological thought about divine intervention—including a range of opinions from supernaturalism, to occasionalism, to providential and deistic naturalism—this trend would blur the epistemological differences between religion and science by appeal to claimed knowledge sources such as inspiration and revelation and thus undermine the achievements of evidence-based science and establish particularistic religious beliefs as standard explanatory accounts. The concern to include a spiritual, in contrast to a religious or theist, dimension in psychological theory is welcome; but elaborated approaches, such as my own and those of Roberto Assagioli, Viktor Frankl, and Ken Wilber, open to varied theological applications, already exist.     

当事人对领悟的看法：质化分析

为了从当事人的视角理解领悟, 采用协商一致的质化研究方法对15位当事人的访谈结果进行分析。结果发现7个与领悟有关的域：领悟的内容, 领悟的效果, 影响领悟产生的因素, 评估领悟质量的依据, 领悟出现时的反应, 领悟的来源和阻碍领悟发挥作用的因素。形成了领悟的概念界定：领悟是对自己和他人(主要是自己)的新认识, 对自己的认识内容包括, 自己的问题模式, 心理困扰或问题模式的原因、影响和解决办法, 以及自己内在的心理状态。     

问题解决中顿悟的原型位置效应的fMRI研究

科学发明创造中, 人们往往对一个问题百思不得其解, 但在看到某一启发性事物(原型)时, 突然产生顿悟, 继而发现解决问题的新思路。本研究以科学发明创造问题为实验材料, 采取“先呈现问题、后呈现原型”和“先呈现原型、后呈现问题”两种范式, 探讨问题解决中顿悟的原型位置效应, 并采用fMRI技术记录大脑的BOLD信号变化。结果发现：行为结果上, “问题在先”条件下正确率显著高于“原型在先”条件; 大脑激活结果上, 问题先导条件下的原型启发的大脑机制主要表现为左侧颞中回(left middle temporal gyrus)和左侧额中回(left middle frontal gyrus)的显著激活, “原型在先”条件下, 主要激活左侧扣带回(left cingulate gyrus)、左侧中央前回(left middle frontal gyrus)。