An Experimental Comparison of Approaches to Training Insight

James N. MacGregor 1 , John Barton Cunningham 2  and Jennifer Walinga 3
  • 1 University of Victoria, , Canada
  • 2 University of Victoria, , Canada
  • 3 Royal Roads University, , Canada

Abstract

The purpose of the research was to investigate different types of training in insight problem solving. In doing so, we reviewed the literature on experimental tests of procedures for training insight problem solving. The results revealed that most procedures focused either on restructuring or divergent thinking, and provided some evidence for the effectiveness of both approaches. However, we found no studies that compared the effects of the two approaches. The article reports two experiments that compared different training procedures based on restructuring and divergent thinking. For the latter, the methods focused separately on fluency, flexibility and originality training. The first experiment compared a restructuring approach with fluency training and a placebo control condition. The results indicated that the restructuring training was significantly more effective than the others, but only when instructions were verbal, not in script form. The second experiment compared restructuring training with flexibility, fluency and originality training, all presented in script form, and the results indicated that the restructuring training was significantly more effective than both fluency training and flexibility training. Implications for future research are discussed.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ahmed, A., & Patrick, J. (2006). Making implicit assumptions explicit in verbal insight problem solving. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 955-960.

  • Ansburg, P. I., & Dominowski, R. L. (2000). Promoting insightful problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 30-60.

  • Ash, I. K., & Wiley, J. (2006). The nature of restructuring in insight: An individual-differences approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 66-73.

  • Ball, L. J., & Stevens, A. (2009). Evidence for a verbally-based analytic component to insight problem solving. Chapter in N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society.

  • Berardi-Coletta, B., Dominowski, R. L., Buyer, L. S., & Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 205-223.

  • Bianchi, I., Branchini, E., Burro, R., Capitani, E., & Savardi, U. (2019) Overtly prompting people to “think in opposites” supports insight problem solving, Thinking & Reasoning, DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2018.1553738

  • Brancini, E., Bianchi, I., Burro,R., Capitani, E., & Savardi, U. (2016) Can contraries prompt intuition in insight problem solving? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01962

  • Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associates problems. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 35: 634-639.

  • Burke, R. J., Maier, N. R., & Hoffman, R. (1966). Functions of hints in individual problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 79, 389-399.

  • Christensen, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. (1958). Creativity/Fluency Scales. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Supply.

  • Chronicle, E. P., Ormerod, T. C., & MacGregor, J. N. (2001). When insight just won’t come: The failure of visual cues in the nine-dot problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 903-919.

  • Chrysikou, E.G. (2006). When shoes become hammers: Goal-derived categorization training enhances problem solving performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 935-942.

  • Chiu, F-C. (2015). Improving your creative potential without awareness: Overinclusive thinking training. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 15, 1-12

  • Chu, Y., & MacGregor, J.N. (2011). Human Performance on Insight Problem Solving: A Review. Journal of Problem Solving, 3(2), 119-150.

  • Clapham, M.M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 33-44.

  • Clapham, M.M., & Shuster, D.H. (1992). Can engineering students be trained to to think more creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 156-162.

  • Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2008) Training insightful problem solving: EffectsO of realistic and puzzle-like contexts. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 291-296.

  • Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. A. (1984). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 58-64.

  • de Bono, E. (1971). Lateral thinking for management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New York: Harper Collins.

  • Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 389-402.

  • Duncan, C. P. (1961). Attempts to influence performance on an insight problem. Psychological Reports, 9, 35-42.

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving., Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.

  • Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

  • Hume, S.E., (2001). Frederick Banting: Hero, healer, artist. Montreal: XYZ Publishing.

  • Isaak, M. I., & Just, M. A. (1995). Constraints on thinking in insight and invention. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

  • 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, and Cognition, 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.

  • Kokinov, B., Hadjiilieva, K. & Yoveva, M. (1997). Is a hint always useful in problem solving? The influence of pragmatic distance on context effects. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, p, 974. Erlbaum.

  • Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J., Subramaniam, K., Parish, T. B., & Jung- Beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind: Neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17(10), 882-890.

  • Luo, J., Niki, K., & Phillips, S. (2004). Neural correlates of the ‘Aha !’ reaction. NeuroReport For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 15, 2013-2017.

  • Luchins, A.S., & Luchins, E.H. (1970). Wertheimer’s Seminars Revisited: Problem Solving and Thinking. State University of New York at Albany.

  • Lung, C.-T., & Dominowski, R. L. (1985). Effects of strategy instructions and practice on nine-dot problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 804-811.

  • Maier, N. R. F. (1933). An aspect of human reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 24, 144-155.

  • 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, and Cognition, 27, 176-201.

  • Ma, H-H. (2006). Synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 435-446

  • Maltzman, I., Lloyd, B.O., Bogartz, W., & Summers, S.S. (1958). The facilitation of problem solving by prior exposure to uncommon responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 399-406.

  • Mansfield, R.S., Busse, T.V., & Krepelka, E.J. (1978). The effectiveness of creativity training. Review of Educational Research, 48, 517-536

  • Metcalfe, J. (1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 623-634.

  • Moga E., Burger, K., Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2000). Does studying the arts engender creative thinking? Evidence for near but not far transfer. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34, 91-104.

  • Ohlsson, S. (1984). 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 M. Keane & K. J. Gilhooley (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1-44). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

  • Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ormerod, T. C., Fioratou, E., Chronicle, E. P., & MacGregor, J. N. (2006). The remnants of insight. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1893-1898.

  • Ostafin B.D., & Kassman, K.T. (2012). Stepping out of history: Mindfulness improves insight problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1031-1036

  • Patrick, J., & Ahmed, A. (2014). Facilitating representation change in insight problems through training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 532-543.

  • Patrick, J., Ahmed, A., Smy, V., Seeby, H., & Sambrooks, K. (2015). A cognitive procedure for representation change in verbal insight problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 746-759.

  • Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11-22.

  • Scott, G. L., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388.

  • Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114-143.

  • Walinga, J., Cunningham, J.B., & MacGregor, J.N. (2011). Training insight problem solving through focus on barriers and assumptions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 47-58.

  • Weisberg, R. W. (1995). Prolegomena to the theories of insight in problem solving: A taxonomy of problems. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 157-196). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Wen, M-C., Butler, L.T., & Koutstaal, W. (2012). Improving insight and non-insight problem solving with brief interventions. British Journal of Psychology, 4, 97-118.

  • Wicker, F. W., Weistein, C. E., Yelich, C. A., & Brooks, J. D. (1978). Problem-reformulation training and visualization training with insight problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 372-377.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search