Can Contraries Prompt Intuition in Insight Problem Solving?

Abstract

This paper aims to test whether the use of contraries can facilitate spatial problem solving. Specifically, we examined whether a training session which included explicit guidance on thinking in contraries would improve problem solving abilities. In our study, the participants in the experimental condition were exposed to a brief training session before being presented with seven visuo-spatial problems to solve. During training it was suggested that it would help them to find the solution to the problems if they systematically transformed the spatial features of each problem into their contraries. Their performance was compared to that of a control group (who had no training). Two participation conditions were considered: small groups and individuals. Higher success rates were found in the groups exposed to training as compared to the individuals (in both the training and no training conditions), even though the time required to find a solution was longer. In general, participants made more attempts (i.e., drawings) when participating in groups than individually. The number of drawings done while the participants were trying to solve the problems did not increase after training. In order to explore if the quality (if not the number) of drawings was modified, we sampled one problem out of the seven we had used in the experiment (the “pigs in a pen” problem) and examined the drawings in detail. Differences between the training and no training conditions emerged in terms of properties focused on and transformed in the drawings. Based on these results, in the final discussion possible explanations are suggested as to why training had positive effects specifically in the group condition.

Pleasures of the Mind: What Makes Jokes and Insight Problems Enjoyable

“…As a final consideration, we would like to focus on the major role of Violation of expectations which emerged in both studies. In a totally different context, i.e., a cognitive analysis of the reasoning mechanisms underlying problem solving and humor, it has been demonstrated that contrast is key to any exploration of alternative strategies in insight problem solving (Branchini et al, 2015 , 2016 ), as well as in inductive (Gale and Ball, 2012 ) and deductive thinking (Augustinova, 2008 ), and it has also been argued that contrast is fundamental to the incongruity mechanism in humor (Colston, 2002 ; Canestrari and Bianchi, 2012 , in press ; Canestrari et al, 2017 ; see reviews in Keith-Spiegel, 1972 ; Martin, 2007 ; Larkin-Galiñanes, 2017 ). The results discussed in the present paper (in particular with respect to the Violation of expectations) suggest that contrast also represents a link between insight problem solving and humor in terms of the cognitive emotions triggering pleasures of the mind.…”

Children’s Psychological Representation of Earthquakes: Analysis of Written Definitions and Rasch Scaling

“…First, we applied Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM), as implemented in the glmer functions in the lme4 package [69] within the R-software (Version 3.6.0, R Core Team, Wien, Austria) [70], to explore the salience of different content types, and the influence of class level (second, fourth-graders) and gender (males, females) on responses (objectives 1a, 1b, and 2b). We performed Mixed Model ANOVA Tables (Type 3 tests) via likelihood ratio tests implemented in the afex package of the R-software [71][72][73][74]; for applications see, for example, [32,[75][76][77][78][79][80][81]. For the various analyses, class level and gender were the between-subject factors; content types were the within-subject factors.…”

An Experimental Comparison of Approaches to Training Insight

“…There was considerable diversity within the categories of procedures classified as "restructuring" and "divergence" in Table 1. For example, as well as the more traditional forms of instructional training (Ansburg & Dominowski, 2000;Cunningham & MacGregor, 2008) there were training procedures based on mindfulness (Ostafin & Kassman, 2012) and "thinking in opposites" (Brancini et al, 2016;Bianchi et al, 2019). Similarly, in addition to well-established methods for facilitating divergent thinking, the list included a test of "overinclusive thinking" (Chiu, 2015).…”