Heuristics and representational change in two-move matchstick arithmetic tasks

• Authors: Michael Öllinger , Gary Jones , Günther Knoblich

Abstracts

EN

Insight problems are problems where the problem solver struggles to find a solution until * aha! * the solution suddenly appears. Two contemporary theories suggest that insight problems are difficult either because problem solvers begin with an incorrect representation of the problem, or that problem solvers apply inappropriate heuristics to the problem. The relative contributions of representational change and inappropriate heuristics on the process of insight problem solving was studied with a task that required the problem solver to move two matchsticks in order to transform an incorrect arithmetic statement into a correct one. Problem solvers (N = 120) worked on two different types of two-move matchstick arithmetic problems that both varied with respect to the effectiveness of heuristics and to the degree of a necessary representational change of the problem representation. A strong influence of representational change on solution rates was found whereas the influence of heuristics had minimal effects on solution rates. That is, the difficulty of insight problems within the two-move matchstick arithmetic domain is governed by the degree of representational change re-quired. A model is presented that details representational change as the necessary condition for ensuring that appropriate heuristics can be applied on the proper problem representation.

Keywords

EN

insight; heuristics; representational change

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie
• Journal: Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Year: 2006
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 239-253

Contributors

author

Michael Öllinger

• Parmenides Center for the Study of Thinking, Munich, Germany

author

Gary Jones

• Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU, UK

author

Günther Knoblich

• Psychology Department, Rutgers University, 101 Warren Street, Newark, NJ 07102

References

• Anderson, J. R. & Lebiere, C. (1998).The atomic components of thought.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Atwood, M. E. & Polson, P. G. (1976). A process model for water jug problems.Cognitive Psychology, 8, 191-216.
• Bowden, E. M. (1997). The effect of reportable and unreportable hints on anagram solution and the aha! experience.Consciousness & Cognition, 6, 545-573.
• Bowden, E. M. & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems.Psychological Science, 9, 435-440.
• Bowden, E. M. & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Aha! - Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 730-737.
• Bowden, E. M., Jung-Beeman, M., Fleck, J. & Kounios, J. (2005). New approaches to demystifying insight.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 322-328.
• Bühler, K. (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge.Archiv für Psychologie, 9, 297-365.
• Chronicle, E. P., MacGregor, J. N. & Ormerod, T. C. (2004). What Makes an Insight Problem? The Roles of Heuristics, Goal Conception, and Solution Recoding in Knowledge-Lean Problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition January, 30, 14-27.
• Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving.Psychological Monographs, 58, ix, 113.
• Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P (1999).Simple heuristics that make us smart.Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
• Grant, E. R. & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought.Psychological Science, 14, 462-466.
• Greeno, J. (1974). Hobbits and Orcs - acquisition of a sequential concept.Cognitive Psychology, 6, 270-292.
• Greer, T. & Dunlap, W. P. (1997). Analysis of variance with ipsative measures.Psychological Methods, 2, 200-207.
• Gruber, H. E. (1995).Insight and affect in the history of science.In: Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (p. 397-431). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Isaak, M. I. & Just, M. A. (1995).Constraints on thinking in insight and invention.In: Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (p. 281-325). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Jones, G. (2003). Testing two cognitive theories of insight.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1017-1027.
• Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., et al. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight.Plos Biology, 2, 500-510.
• Kaplan, C. A. & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight.Cognitive Psychology, 22, 374-419.
• Katona, G. (1940).Organizing and memorizing: studies in the psychology of learning and teaching.New York: Columbia University.
• Kershaw, T. C. & Ohlsson, S. (2004). Multiple Causes of Difficulty in Insight: The Case of the Nine-Dot Problem.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition January, 30, 3-13.
• Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H. & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 25, 1534-1555.
• Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S. & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving.Memory & Cognition, 29, 1000-1009.
• Lovett, M. C. & Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving: Combined influences on operator selection.Cognitive Psychology, 31, 168-217.
• Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving-the effect of Einstellung.Psychological Monographs, 54, 1-95.
• MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C. & Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information processing and insight: A process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 176-201.
• Maier, N. R. F. (1930). Reasoning in humans. I. On direction.Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10, 115-143.
• Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness.Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181-194.
• Mayer, R. E. (1992).Thinking, problem solving, cognition(2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Metcalfe, J. (1986a). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 12, 288-294.
• Metcalfe, J. (1986b). Premonitions of insight predict impending error.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 12, 623-634.
• Metcalfe, J. & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving.Memory & Cognition, 15, 238-246.
• Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Novick, L. R., and Sherman, S. J. (2003). On the nature of insight solutions: Evidence from skill differences in anagram solution.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A-Human Experimental Psychology, 56, 351-382.
• Ohlsson, S. (1984a). Restructuring revisited: I. Summary and critique of the Gestalt theory of problem solving.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25, 65-78.
• Ohlsson, S. (1984b). Restructuring revisited: II. An information processing theory of restructuring and insight.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25, 117-129.
• Ohlsson, S. (1992).Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena.In: Keane, M. & Gilhooly, K. (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (p. 1-44). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
• Öllinger, M. & Knoblich, G. (2003).Prioritizing the new: Insight creates set for familiar problems.In: Schmalhofer, F. & Young, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European Cognitive Science Conference 2003 (p. 253-258). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N. & Chronicle, E. P. (2002). Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 791-799.
• Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E., Eds. (1995).The nature of insight.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Thomas, J. C. (1974). An analysis of behavior in the hobbits-orcs problem.Cognitive Psychology, 6, 257-269.
• Wegner, D. M. (2002).The illusion of conscious will.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Wertheimer, M. (1959).Productive thinking.New York: Harper.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10053-008-0059-3