Introspection in Problem Solving

Abstract

Problem solving research has encountered an impasse. Since the seminal work of Newell und Simon (1972) researchers do not seem to have made much theoretical progress (Batchelder and Alexander, 2012;Ohlsson, 2012). In this paper we argue that one factor that is holding back the field is the widespread rejection of introspection among cognitive scientists. We review evidence that introspection improves problem solving performance, sometimes dramatically. Several studies suggest that self-observation, self-monitoring, and self-reflection play a key role in developing problem solving strategies. We argue that studying these introspective processes will require researchers to systematically ask subjects to introspect. However, we document that cognitive science textbooks dismiss introspection and as a consequence introspective methods are not used in problem solving research, even when it would be appropriate. We conclude that research on problem solving would benefit from embracing introspection rather than dismissing it. In contemporary cognitive science introspection is widely regarded as a mysterious and problematic method for uncovering the operations of the mind. Most researchers will typically avoid the conceptual and methodological minefield of introspection. Johnson-Laird (2008, p. 17), in the context of reasoning, expresses an attitude towards introspection that many cognitive scientists share: "To reason is to carry out a mental process. Introspection doesn't reveal to us how that process works. (If it did, then psychologists would have understood how it worked long ago.) Hence the process is unconscious. " There are good reasons to be skeptical about the usefulness of introspection as a method in many areas of perception and cognition. Many processes are unconscious and hence, by definition, unaccessible for introspection. From this, however, it does not follow that introspection has no role to play in psychological research or that introspection is not an interesting process worthy of study in itself.In the context of problem solving it is important to stress that introspection is, at least sometimes, an essential part of problem solving processes. When dealing with new or hard problems that cannot be solved by standard methods, good problem solvers introspect while they engage with their task: they examine their strategies and representations, they evaluate their progress, and they realize that they are stuck or that they have had an insight. Understanding often seems to depend on some form of conscious and deliberate reflection on one's own thoughts. These are salient phenomena that we should not ignore. In the literature, the dubious term introspection is often avoided and is replaced with notions such as self-observation, self-monitoring, self-reflection, or metacognition, but also these terms remain mysterious (Brown, 1987).We, thus, believe that research on problem solving, at some point, will have to face squarely the conceptual muddle surrounding introspection, metacognition, and consciousness.Pr...

The phenomenology of Aha-experiences.

“…The latter perspective, the focus of the present project, is a more recent contribution to psychology and many researchers advocate that the phenomenology dimension is crucial to further the research on insight (e.g., Bowden & Grunewald, 2018;Danek, 2018). Similarly, we argue that though self-reports and introspection have limited value in understanding the underlying cognitive processes of insight (Jäkel & Schreiber, 2013), such reports are essential in understanding the subjective Ahaexperience.…”

It's a kind of magic—what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving

“…reports might provide information that would not be accessible through more rigorous experimental methods. Other researchers have successfully used verbal protocols to elucidate the processes during insight problem solving (Kaplan and Simon, 1990 ; Dominowski and Buyer, 2000 ; Fleck and Weisberg, 2004 ; see also Fox et al, 2011 , for a recent meta-analysis on verbalization procedures in general) and others even argue that the rejection of introspective methods hinders the advancement of the field (Jäkel and Schreiber, 2013 ). We suggest that the traditional approach of using pre-defined “insight problems” and assuming the occurrence of insight in the case of a solved problem, without taking into account participants' individual problem solving experiences, should always be complemented by subjective measures (e.g., Aha!…”

Complex Problem Solving: What It Is and What It Is Not

“…There are interesting options to be explored (again): think-aloud protocols , which have been discredited for many years (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977) and yet are a valuable source for theory testing (Ericsson and Simon, 1983); introspection (Jäkel and Schreiber, 2013), which seems to be banned from psychological methods but nevertheless offers insights into thought processes; the use of life-streaming (Wendt, 2017), a medium in which streamers generate a video stream of think-aloud data in computer-gaming; political decision-making (Dhami et al, 2015) that demonstrates error-proneness in groups; historical case studies (Dörner and Güss, 2011) that give insights into the thinking styles of political leaders; the use of the critical incident technique (Reuschenbach, 2008) to construct complex scenarios; and simulations with different degrees of fidelity (Gray, 2002). …”