Title

Can observing a Necker cube (really) make you more insightful? The evidence from objective and subjective indicators of insight

Journal title

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Yearbook

2021

Volume

vol. 52

Issue

No 4

Affiliation

Olszewska, Angelika : SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland ; Sobkow, Agata : SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland

Authors

Olszewska, Angelika ; Sobkow, Agata

Keywords

problem-solving ; insight

Divisions of PAS

Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne

Coverage

311-321

Publisher

Committee for Psychological Science PAS

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

Date

2022.01.03

Type

Article

Identifier

DOI: 10.24425/ppb.2021.139164

Aims and scope

Polish Psychological Bulletin (founded in 1970) is an official journal of Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee for Psychological Science.The journal publish a variety of papers, including empirical reports of experiments, surveys and field studies, theoretical articles, controversies and analytic papers on important psychological topics. Relevance for an international readership is our prominent goal, Polish Psychological Bulletin does not publish clinical case studies, or technical articles. Submissions from all domains of psychology are encouraged, especially those that address new developments and pursue innovative approaches.

Periodically, the journal will announce a call for papers for special issues. The journal will also entertain unsolicited proposals for special issues that fit the stated scope of the Polish Psychiological Bulletin (please contact the journal’s Editor-in-Chief with a detailed description of your proposal).

All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous evaluation of content and merit by independent expert reviewers.

For information on specific requirements, please see the Author Guidelines.

Abstracting & Indexing

Abstracting and Indexing Information


• DESY Publication Database

• Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)

• Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences

• Dimensions

• EBSCO

• ERIH Plus

• Google Scholar

• Index Copernicus

• ProQuest

• PsychArchives

• Science Open

• SCOPUS (Elsevier)

• Sherpa/RoMEO