Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 5
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Changing a problem’s representation is a crucial process when solving insight problems. Recently, Laukkonen and Tangen (2017) found that observing ambiguous figures such as a Necker Cube before solving problems can increase insight frequency. In our research, we extended their procedure by including measures of feelings of insight (e.g., confidence and pleasure). This approach allowed us to test the replicability of relationships between perceptual switching and insight frequency in terms of both accuracy of problem solutions and insight phenomenology. The research took the form of two studies using two different samples (NA = 68 and NB = 198) using online platforms. Our results consistently showed no effect of prior Necker cube perception on accuracy. However, we found a significant difference in self- reported insight (1 - non-aha! experience to 5 – a very strong aha! experience) in our Sample B study. The results suggest the possibility that viewing ambiguous figures may not have a triggering effect on insight problem-solving performance but that it may trigger stronger insight experiences when solving insight problems.
Go to article

Bibliography


Botvinick, M. M., S, B. T., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict Monitoring and Cognitive Control. Psychological Review, 103(3), 624–652.
Champely, S., (2020). pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis. R package version 1.3-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr
Chuderski, A., Jastrzębski, J., Kroczek, B., Kucwaj, H., & Ociepka, M. (2020). Metacognitive experience on Raven’s matrices versus insight problems. Metacognition and Learning, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09236-6
Danek, A. H. (2018). Magic tricks, sudden restructuring, and the Aha! experience: A new model of nonmonotonic problem solving. In F. Valee-Tourangeau (Ed.), Insight (pp. 51-78). Routledge.
Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2014). It’s a kind of magic-what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01408
Danek, A. H., & Wiley, J. (2017). What about false insights? Deconstructing the aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately. Frontiers in Psychol-ogy, 7, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077
Danek, A. H., Wiley, J., & Öllinger, M. (2016). Solving classical insight problems without aha! experience: 9 Dot, 8 Coin, and matchstick arithmetic problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 9(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1183
Danek, A. H., Williams, J., & Wiley, J. (2020). Closing the gap: connecting sudden representational change to the subjective Aha! experience in insightful problem solving. Psychological Research, 0(0), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0977-8
Duncker, K. (1926). A qualitative (experimental and theoretical) study of productive thinking (solving of comprehensible problems). Pedago-gical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 33, 642–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1926.10533052
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Gick, M. L., & Lockhart, R. S. (1995). Cognitive and affective components of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & R. Davidson, John (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 197–228). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Guilforfd, J. P. (1967). The nature of human inteligence. McGraw-Hill. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt Psychology. The definitive statement of the Gestalt Theory. New York: Liveright.
Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2005). The Necker cube - An ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Research, 45(8), 955–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.006
Kounios, J, & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115134
Kounios, John, Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2008). The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.013
Laukkonen, R. E., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). Can observing a Necker cube make you more insightful? Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 198– 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.11.011
Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (2004). Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 748–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.748
Metcalfe, J. (1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(2), 288–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.2.288
Newell, A. (1985). Duncker on thinking: An inquiry into progress in cognition. A Century of Psychology as Science., 392–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/10117-032
Ohlsson, S. (1984). Restructuring revisited: II. An information processing theory of restructuring and insight. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1984.tb01005.x
Olteteanu, A. M., Schöttner, M., & Bahety, A. (2019). Towards a multi- level exploration of human and computational re-representation in unified cognitive frameworks. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(APR), 0– 34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00940
Popper, K. (2005). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. In Hume’s Problem. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198250371.003.0009
Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000227
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). A new look at the creativity‐ intelligence distinction 1. Journal of Personality, 33(3), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1965.tb01391.x
Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., & Cropper, S. J. (2016). Insight is not in the problem: Investigating insight in problem solving across task types. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01424
Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., & Cropper, S. J. (2017). Once more with feeling: Normative data for the aha experience in insight and noninsight problems. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 2035– 2056. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0972-9
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Gilhooly, K., & Georgiou, G. (2011). Creativity and ease of ambiguous figural reversal. British Journal of Psychol-ogy, 102(3), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02031.x
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Angelika Olszewska
1
ORCID: ORCID
Agata Sobkow
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

We conducted pre-registered replications of 15 effects in the field of judgment and decision making (JDM). We aimed to test the generalizability of different classical and modern JDM effects, including, among others: less-is- better, anchoring, and framing to different languages, cultures, or current situations (COVID-19 pandemic). Replicated studies were selected and conducted by undergraduate psychology students enrolled in a decision-making course. Two hundred and two adult volunteers completed an online battery of replicated studies. With a classical significance criterion (p < .05), seven effects were successfully replicated (47%), five partially replicated (33%), and three did not replicate (20%). Even though research materials differed from the originals in several ways, the replication rate in our project is slightly above earlier reported findings in similar replication projects. We discuss factors that may underlie replication results (success vs. failure). We also stress the role of open science practices such as open data, open research materials, pre-registration, and registered reports in improving the replicability of results in the JDM field.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Agata Sobkow
1
ORCID: ORCID
Marcin Surowski
1
ORCID: ORCID
Angelika Olszewska
1
ORCID: ORCID
Nina Antoniewska
1
Katarzyna Barcik
1
Urszula Bartkiewicz
1
Agnieszka Brzeska
1
Adrianna Brzozowska
1
Oliwia Budrewicz
1
Jakub Choja
1
Kamila Choma
1
Patrycja Chorbotowicz
1
Michalina Filimoniak
1
Łukasz Filip
1
Paweł Gambuś
1
Weronika Gierlik
1
Tomasz Gonczar
1
Katarzyna Goryczka
1
Maksymilian Góra
1
Marta Haczek
1
Weronika Hetmańczuk
1
Zuzanna Holka
1
Aneta Janosz
1
Nikola Kikowska
1
Joanna Kołcun
1
Zuzanna Kozłowska
1
Monika Kujawińska
1
Marcin Kuleszczyk
1
Aleksandra Lach-Galińska
1
Katarzyna Latacz
1
Adam Ławniczak
1
Katarzyna Majewska
1
Klaudia Makowska
1
Marta Mamzer
1
Iga Marciniszyn
1
Adam Masternak
1
Magdalena Matuszek
1
Jonasz Mehr
1
Ewelina Miela
1
Monika Mleczko
1
Paulina Morga
1
Magdalena Niemczyk
1
Damian Ostrowski
1
Jagoda Pełdiak
1
Kamil Piotrowicz
1
Antoni Płuciennik
1
Oskar Ryśkiewicz
1
Weronika Sekuła
1
Małgorzata Sikora
1
Natalia Sikora
1
Daria Sitko
1
Agata Sobczak
1
Julia Sosenko
1
Sonia Stando
1
Katarzyna Starek
1
Łukasz Ślak
1
Jagoda Świtała
1
Natalia Świtniewska
1
Agnieszka Tyc
1
Olga Urban
1
Natalia Wcisło
1
Katarzyna Wiśniewska
1
Joanna Wodzińska
1
Aleksandra Zabiełło
1
Monika Żygadło
1
Tomasz Zaleskiewicz
1
ORCID: ORCID
Jakub Traczyk
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities; Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more