Insight versus analysis: Evidence for diverse methods in problem solving created by Jessica I. Fleck, Robert W. Weisberg
Material type:data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6b0ba/6b0ba83dea1b2061c05bcfba62c4cc7e8d358d60" alt="Text"
- text
- unmediated
- volume
Item type | Current library | Call number | Vol info | Copy number | Status | Notes | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Main Library - Special Collections | BF311 JOU (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Vol. 25, No. 4 pages 436-463 | SP18003 | Not for loan | For in-house use only |
Since the Gestalt psychologists made the distinction approximately 100 years ago, psychologists have differentiated between solving problems through analysis versus insight. The present paper presents evidence to support the idea that, rather than conceptualising insight versus analysis as distinct modes of solving problems, it is more useful to conceive of insight and analysis as two approaches within a set of possible solving methods. In the present research, 60 participants solved insight problems while thinking aloud, which provided evidence concerning the processes underlying problem solution. Comparison with performance of a nonverbalisation control group (n = 35) indicated no negative effects of thinking aloud on insight in problem solving. The results supported the idea that various methods are utilised in solving insight problems. The “classic” impasse–restructuring–insight sequence occurred in only a small minority of solutions. A number of other solution methods were found, ranging from relatively direct applications of knowledge, to various heuristic methods, to restructuring arising from new information gleaned from a failed solution. It is concluded that there is not a sharp distinction between solving a problem through analysis versus insight, and implications of that conclusion are discussed.
There are no comments on this title.