User:Dana Westerkam/sandbox

Future plans - add pictures showing results/demonstrating the types of insight problems - perhaps elaborate on some of the results sections - work on pinpoint theories in insight

MY ROUGH DRAFT (already posted to mainspace):

In psychology
In psychology, insight occurs when a solution to a problem presents itself quickly and without warning. The phenomenon had its beginnings with Gestalt Psychology, in the early part of the 19th century, during the search for an alternative to associationism and the associationistic view on learning. Some proposed potential mechanisms for insight include: suddenly seeing the problem in a new way, connecting the problem to another relevant problem/solution pair, releasing past experiences blocking the solution presentation, or seeing the bigger, coherent picture of a problem.

Methods
Generally, methodological approaches to the study of insight in the laboratory involve presenting participants with problems and puzzles that cannot be solved in a conventional or logical manner. Problems of insight commonly fall into three types. The first type of problem forces participants to use objects in a way they are not accustomed to (thus, breaking their functional fixedness), like the “Duncker candle problem”. In the “Duncker candle problem”, individuals are given matches and a box of tacks and asked to find a way to attach a candle to the wall. The solution requires the participants to empty to the box of tacks, set the candle inside the box, and tack the box to the wall. The second type of insight problem requires spatial ability to solve, like the “Nine-dot Problem”. The famous “Nine-dot problem” requires participants to draw four lines, through nine dots, without picking their pencil up. The third, and final, type of problem requires verbal ability to solve, like the Remote Associates Test. In the RAT, individuals must think of a word that connects three, seemingly unrelated, words. As an example, with the presentation of desk, mountain, and tree, one would answer, top. RAT are often used in experiments, because they can be solved both with and without insight.

Insight versus Non-insight Problems
Two clusters of problems, those solvable by insight and those not requiring insight to solve, have been observed. An individual’s cognitive flexibility, fluency, and vocabulary ability are predictive of performance on insight problems, but not on non-insight problems. In contrast, fluid intelligence is mildly predictive of performance on non-insight problems, but not on insight problems.

fMRI and EEG scans of participants completing RAT demonstrate unique brain activity corresponding to problems solved by insight. For one, there is high EEG activity in the alpha- and gamma-band about 300 milliseconds before the participant indicated a solution in insight problems, but not in non-insight problems. Additionally, problems solved by insight corresponded to increased activity in the temporal lobes and mid-frontal cortex, while more activity in the posterior cortex corresponded to non-insight problems. The data suggests there is something different occuring in the brain when solving insight versus non-insight problems that happens right before the solving of the problem.

In Animals
Studies with apes have provided evidence of insight in animals. Apes were presented with an insight problem that required the use of objects in a way they are not accustomed to in order to win a prize (usually, some kind of food). It was observed that the animals would continuously fail to get the food, and this process occurred for quite some time; however, rather suddenly, they would purposefully use the object in the way needed to get the food, as if the realization had occurred out of nowhere. Experimenters regarded the behavior as something resembling insight in apes.

In the Brain
Differences in brain activation in the left and right hemisphere seem to be indicative of insight versus non-insight solutions. Using RAT’s that were either presented to the left or right visual field, it was shown that participants indicating having solved the problem with insight were more likely to have been shown the RAT on the left visual field, indicating right hemisphere processing. This provides evidence that the right hemisphere plays a unique role in insight.

Emotion
It has been shown that people in a better mood are more likely to solve problems by insight. It appears that self-reported positive affect of participants uniquely increases insight before and during the solving of the problem, as indicated by differing brain activity patterns. Interestingly, people experiencing anxiety showed the opposite effect, and solved less problems by insight.

Incubation
Using a geometric and spatial insight problem, it was found that providing participants with breaks improved their performance as compared to participants who did not receive a break. However, the length of incubation between problems did not matter. Thus, participant’s performance on insight problems improved just as much for a short break (four minutes) as it did for a long break (twelve minutes).

Sleep
Sleep appears to help produce insight. Individuals were initially trained on insight problems. Following training, one group was tested on the insight problems after sleeping for eight hours at night, one group was tested after staying awake all night, and one group was tested after staying awake all day. Those that slept performed twice as well on the insight problems than those who stayed awake.

Group Insight
It was found that groups typically perform better on insight problems (rebus puzzles wither either helpful or unhelpful clues) than individuals. Additionally, while incubation improves insight performance for individuals, it improves insight performance for groups even more. Thus, after a fifteen-minute break, individual performance improved for the unhelpful clues, and group performance improved for both types of clues.

In Nature
Recently, insight was studied in a non-laboratory setting. Accounts of insight that have been reported in the media, such as in interviews, etc., were examined and coded. It was found that insights that occur in the field are typically reported to be associated with a sudden “change in understanding” and with “seeing connections and contradictions” in the problem. Interestingly, it was also found that insight in nature somewhat contradicted insight in the laboratory. For example, insight in nature was often rather gradual, not sudden, and incubation was not as important as previously thought.

Individual Differences
Using a variety of insight problems, personality and gender, as they relate to performance on insight problems, was studied. It was found that participants who ranked lower on emotionality and higher on openness to experience performed better on insight problems. Interestingly, men outperformed women on insight problems, and women outperformed men on non-insight problems.

Higher intelligence (higher IQ) has also been found to be associated with better performance on insight problems. However, those of lower intelligence benefit more than those of higher intelligence from being provided with cues and hints for insight problems.

Metacognition
Individuals are poorer at predicting their own metacognition for insight problems, than for non-insight problems. Individuals were asked to indicate how “hot” or “cold” to a solution they felt. Generally, they were able to predict this fairly well for non-insight problems, but not for insight problems. This provides evidence for the suddenness involved during insight.

Dual Process Theory
According to the dual process theory, there are two systems used to solve problems. The first involves logical and analytical thought processes based on reason, while the second involves intuitive and automatic processes based on experience. Insight probably involves both process, but it appears it encompasses more of the second.

Three-Process Theory
According to the three-processes theory, intelligence plays a large role in insight. Specifically, insight involves three different processes (selective encoding, combination, and comparison), which require intelligence to apply to problems. Selective encoding is the process of focusing attention on ideas relevant to a solution, while ignoring features that are irrelevant. Selective combination is the process of combining the information previously deemed relevant. Finally, selective comparison is the use of past experience with problems and solutions that are applicable to the current problem and solution.

Four-Stage Model
According the four-stage model of insight, there are four stages to problem solving. First, the individual prepares to solve a problem. Second, the individual incubates on the problem, which encompasses trial-and-error, etc. Third, the insight occurs, and the solution is illuminated. Finally, the verification of the solution to the problem is experienced. Since this model was proposed, other similar models have been explored that contain two or three similar stages.