Individual Differences in Insight and Analytic Problem Solving: Evidence from Several Studies

Wieth and Zacks’ Results and Business-as-Usual Theory

1. Wieth and Zacks’ results refute the business-as-usual theory. Using what you know about the theory and the results of Wieth and Zacks’ study, explain why. (2 points)

2. Wieth and Zacks’ results support the special-process theory. Using what you know about the theory and the results of Wieth and Zacks’ study, explain why. (2 points)

 

Part B: Chein, Weisberg, Streeter, & Kwok, 2010
Several prior studies suggested that individual differences in WM did not affect insight problem solving because of the restructuring that was needed to solve those types of problems. These prior studies assumed that WM was only relevant for analytic problems. Chein et al. tested these assumptions with the nine-dot problem, which is considered to be a difficult insight task. Ss completed several measures of WM capacity, including a symmetry span task which measures spatial WM, and then had up to 10 minutes to solve the nine-dot problem. In contrast to past research, Chein et al. found that individual differences in WM did affect insight problem solving: Ss with high spatial WM were more likely to take actions that led to solution, such as drawing lines beyond the dots, than Ss with low spatial WM.

3. Chein et al.’s results support the business-as-usual theory. Using what you know about the theory and the results of Chein et al.’s study, explain why. (2 points)
4. Chein et al.’s results refute the special-process theory. Using what you know about the theory and the results of Chein et al.’s study, explain why. (2 points)

 

Part C: DeYoung, Flanders, & Peterson (2008)
DeYoung et al. investigated how individual differences in convergent thinking and divergent thinking contributed to solving insight and analytic problems. To measure individual differences in convergent thinking, a verbal intelligence test was administered. To measure individual differences in divergent thinking, three items were used from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, including an alternative uses measure (“list all the uses you can think of for a brick”). A battery of mathematical and logic problems were used as the analytic problems, and a battery of verbal insight problems were used (including the water lilies problemDeYoung et al. found that individual differences in convergent thinking predicted both the number of insight problems and the number of analytic problems that were solved. DeYoung et al. also found that individual differences in divergent thinking predicted the number of insight problems that were solved, but had no effect on analytic problem solving.

5. DeYoung et al.’s results support the business-as-usual theory. Using what you know about the theory and the results of DeYoung et al.’s study, explain why. (2 points)

6. DeYoung et al.’s results also support the special-process theory. Using what you know about the theory and the results of DeYoung et al.’s study, explain why. (2 points)