![]() In contrast, incorrect solutions were more likely to be preceded by a gradual increase in warmth. 633), measured as a sudden increase in warmth ratings upon finding a solution (from a previous flat line). She found that warmth ratings differed as a function of solution correctness: 76% of all correct solutions were preceded by a “subjectively catastrophic process” ( Metcalfe, 1986b, p. She was the first to look at metacognition during problem solving by using feeling-of-warmth ratings on a set of problems thought to require insight for solution. (2016) which will be discussed in detail further below.Įmpirical support for the strong position that insight is linked to finding a correct solution, comes from one study by Metcalfe (1986b). Exceptions are recent studies by Danek et al. Empirical findings regarding the nature of Aha! experiences during false insights are sparse because incorrect solutions are typically discarded and not further analyzed. However, the question of the existence of false insights (experiences that feel like insights during incorrect solution attempts) has not received much attention so far. 124) and that they would arise if a solution attempt that seems promising at first glance does not map onto the actual problem space. On the other hand, already Ohlsson theorized that “erroneous insights” could exist ( Ohlsson, 1984b, p. This implies that the Aha! experience should be different or even non-existent for incorrect solutions. If the Aha! experience is closely linked to insightful solution processes based on restructuring (“representational change” in terms of Ohlsson, 1992), then theoretically, an Aha! should only be experienced when the correct solution is found (i.e., a “true insight”). The subjective Aha! experience that problem solvers often report when they find a solution has been taken as a marker for insight (e.g., Kaplan and Simon, 1990 Gick and Lockhart, 1995) and researchers have relied on self-reports of the Aha! experience to distinguish insight solutions from non-insight solutions (e.g., Jung-Beeman et al., 2004 Kounios et al., 2006 Subramaniam et al., 2009). This classical view of insight as being defined by a restructuring of the problem representation ( Wertheimer, 1925) implies that an insight always results in a correct solution, as for example also postulated by Sandkühler and Bhattacharya (2008). The founders of insight research, the Gestalt psychologists, understood insight to be the result of a productive thinking process turning a problem, or “defective Gestalt,” into a solution, a “good Gestalt” ( Wertheimer, 1925, 1959 Duncker, 1945). Theoretically, false insights should not exist. ![]() Strong Aha! experiences are clearly, but not exclusively linked to correct solutions. On the other hand, the quantitative and qualitative differences in the experience of correct and incorrect solutions demonstrate that the Aha! experience is not a mere epiphenomenon. ![]() These results cast some doubt on the assumption that the occurrence of an Aha! experience can serve as a definitive signal that a true insight has taken place. Solution correctness proffered a slightly different emotional coloring to the Aha! experience, with the additional perception of Relief for correct solutions, and Surprise for incorrect ones. Third, although Aha! experiences for correct and incorrect solutions share these three common dimensions, they are also experienced differently with regard to magnitude and quality, with correct solutions emerging faster, leading to stronger Aha! experiences, and higher ratings of Pleasure, Suddenness, and Certainty. Second, the Aha! experience is multidimensional and consists of the key components Pleasure, Suddenness and Certainty. This study reports three main findings: First, false insights exist. Solution times were also used as predictors for the Aha! experience. To address these gaps in the literature, 70 participants were presented with a set of difficult problems (37 magic tricks), and rated each of their solutions for Aha! as well as with regard to Suddenness in the emergence of the solution, Certainty of being correct, Surprise, Pleasure, Relief, and Drive. ![]() Similarly, although the Aha! experience is not a unitary construct, little work has explored the different dimensions that have been proposed as its constituents. However, little work has explored whether the Aha! experience can also accompany incorrect solutions (“false insights”). If Aha! is closely linked to insightful solution processes, then theoretically, an Aha! should only be experienced when the correct solution is found. The subjective Aha! experience that problem solvers often report when they find a solution has been taken as a marker for insight. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |