工作记忆对顿悟和分析型问题解决的影响

张心如; 王伟; 段海军; 赵洋洋; 阚越粹; 胡卫平

PDF(607 KB)

心理科学 ›› 2019, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4) : 777-783.

基础、实验与工效

工作记忆对顿悟和分析型问题解决的影响

张心如¹,²,王伟¹,³,段海军³,赵洋洋¹,³,阚越粹¹,³,胡卫平³

作者信息 +

Effect of Working Memory on Insight and Analytic Problem Solving

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

摘要采用顿悟-分析自我报告范式，以远距离联想任务为实验材料，从工作记忆容量和工作记忆负荷两个角度考察了工作记忆对顿悟和分析型问题解决的影响。结果表明，高工作记忆容量个体分析型问题解决的表现优于低工作记忆容量者，但在顿悟表现上无显著差异；工作记忆负荷较小时个体分析型问题解决表现更佳，但对顿悟表现没有影响。说明通过分析解决创造性问题的表现依赖于工作记忆的支持，而通过顿悟解决问题的表现与工作记忆无关。

Abstract

Abstract Creative problems can be solved by either insight or analysis. Insight denotes the sudden formation of a concept or the reconstruction of knowledge. On the contrary, when employing an analytic approach, the correct answer to the solution always comes from a series of conscious initiative thinking. The effect of working memory on creative problem solving has been discussed by numerous researchers, for the reason that central executive function components of working memory are closely related to the effects of attention control and suppression of distraction. Researchers have tried to clarify whether working memory plays different roles in insight and analytic problem solving, but the cognitive processing mechanism of creative problem solving remains controversial and inconsistent. Based on the previous studies, it is proposed that different experimental materials and paradigms may cause interference. On the one hand, if the initial representation phase of creativity problem solving process is too difficult, the relationship between the subsequent processing phase and working memory would not be embodied. On the other hand, different experimental materials for insight and analysis may cover the actual psychological process of problem-solving. In order to eliminate the dependence of information processing load on working memory in the initial representational stage of creative problem solving，this study has focused on the relationship between working memory and creative problem-solving when the information processing load of representation stage is relatively small. And the Remote Association Task has been employed as the experimental material in the self-report paradigm to ensure that insight and analytic problem solving can be compared under equivalent experimental conditions. In line with the previous studies, two experiments have been conducted from the perspective of working memory capacity and additional working memory load respectively. The former focuses on individual differences, while the latter focuses on contextual factors and makes further exploration through direct experimental manipulation. In Experiment 1, working memory capacity of participants was measured by the Automation Operation Span task (AO-span). In Experiment 2, the dual-task paradigm has been applied in which participants are asked to speak loudly following the warning sounds while completing the creative problem-solving task. The result has shown that (1) The overall performance of creative problem solving by high WMC individuals is better, but the proportion of problem solving by means of insight is lower than that by low WMC individuals. (2) Higher working memory capacity is related to better performance on analytic approach instead of insight. (3) Additional working memory load could harm creative problem-solving performance. (4) Compared with the high WML condition, the number of problems solved by analysis under low WML condition increases. Whereas there is no significant difference in insight between the two conditions. The results of the experiment indicate that analytic problem solving relies on the support of working memory when completing the RAT task, but working memory has no effect on insight. This result has provided a strong refutation on the concept of nothing-special view. In addition, the results suggest that adequate cognitive resources help problem solvers to solve creative problems more analytically, and that when cognitive resources are insufficient, the proportion of problems solved by insight is larger. Compared with the experimental results obtained from the creative problem with high information processing load in the initial characterization stage, when the initial representational load is small, the effect of working memory on the initial representational stage has reduced. This may be one of the reasons why the results of this study are inconsistent with some previous studies. This study found that working memory has different effects on insight and analytic problem solving. There are two possible explanations for this result. Firstly, according to the dual-process theory, insight and analysis can be controlled by different processing systems which may be the reason why working memory plays different role among them. Based on the results of this study, the analysis may depend on the control processing system, while insight may depend on the automatic processing system. Secondly, the reason that working memory does not affect insight problem solving may be that the promoting and hindering effects at different stages offset each other. On the basis of this study, the future research can directly compare the creative problem solving process with different information processing loads in the initial representation phase.

导出引用

张心如王伟段海军赵洋洋阚越粹胡卫平. 工作记忆对顿悟和分析型问题解决的影响[J]. 心理科学. 2019, 42(4): 777-783

Effect of Working Memory on Insight and Analytic Problem Solving[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2019, 42(4): 777-783

参考文献

罗劲. (2004). 顿悟的大脑机制.?心理学报,?36(2), 219–234. 邱江, 张庆林. (2007). 字谜解决中的“啊哈”效应，来自EEP研究的证据. 科学通报, 52(22), 2625–2631. 徐展, 李强强, & 邱江. (2017). 工作记忆容量对创造性思维的预测.?心理科学(1), 64–69. Axmacher, N., Henseler, M. M., Jensen, O., Weinreich, I., Elger, C. E., & Fell, J. (2010). Cross-frequency coupling supports multi-item working memory in the human hippocampus.?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,?107(7), 3228–3233. Aihara, T., Ogawa, T., Shimokawa, T., & Yamashita, O. (2017). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the right anterior temporal lobe did not significantly affect verbal insight.?Plos One,?12(9), 1–21. Banks, J. B., Tartar, J. L., & Tamayo, B. A. (2015). Examining factors involved in stress-related working memory impairments: Independent or conditional effects?Emotion,?15(6), 827–836. Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological bulletin,?130(4), 553–573. Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2014). Does insight problem solving predict real-world creativity??Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,8(3), 287–292. Beilock, S. L., DeCaro, M. S.(2007). From poor performance to success under stress: working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 983–998. Benedek, M., Franz, F., Heene, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2012). Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity.Personality & Individual Differences,53(4), 480–485. Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Sommer, M., Arendasy, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: the common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity.Intelligence,?46(1), 73–83. Bowden, E. M. (1997). The effect of reportable and unreportable hints on anagram solution and the aha! experience.?Consciousness & Cognition,6(4), 545–573. Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Aha! insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere.?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,?10(3), 730–737. Bowden, E. M., Jung-Beeman, M., Fleck, J., & Kounios, J. (2005). New approaches to demystifying insight. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7), 322–328. Burgess, G. C., Gray, J. R., Conway, A. R. A., & Braver, T. S. (2011). Neural mechanisms of interference control underlie the relationship between fluid intelligence and working memory span.?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,?140(4), 674–692. Camarda, A., Bors, G., Agogué, M., Agogué, M., Weil, B., Houdé, O., & Cassotti, M. (2017). Do we need inhibitory control to be creative? evidence from a dual-task paradigm. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. Chein, J. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (2014). Working memory and insight in verbal problems: analysis of compound remote associates.?Memory & Cognition,?42(1), 67–83. Chrysikou, E. G., Motyka, K., Nigro, C., Yang, S. I., & Thompsonschill, S. L. (2016). Functional Fixedness in Creative Thinking Tasks Depends on Stimulus Modality. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity & the Arts,?10?(4)?:425–435. Chuderski, A., & Jastrzebski, J. (2017). Much Ado About Aha!: Insight Problem Solving Is Strongly Related to Working Memory Capacity and Reasoning Ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Advance online publication. Decaro, M. S., Van Stockum, C. A., & Wieth, M. B. (2016). When higher working memory capacity hinders insight.?Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition,?42(1), 39–49. Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., & Shisler, R. J. (1995). A resource account of inhibition. Psychological Science, 6, 122–125. Fleck, J. I. (2008). Working memory demands in insight versus analytic problem solving.?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,?20(1), 139–176. Gilhooly, K. J., Logie, R. H., & Wynn, V. (1999). Syllogistic reasoning tasks, working memory, and skill. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 473–498. Gilhooly, K. J., & Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems.Thinking & Reasoning,?11(3), 279–302. Gilhooly, K. J., Phillips, L. H., & Wynn, V. (1999). Planning processes and age in the five-disc tower of london task. Thinking & Reasoning, 5(4), 339–361. Gilhooly, K. J., Wynn, V., Philips, L. H., Llogie, R. H., & Della Sala, S. (2002). Visuo-spatial and verbal working memory in the five-disc tower of london task: an individual differences approach.?Thinking & Reasoning, 8(3), 165–178. Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., & Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J., Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight.?Plos Biology,?2(4), 500–510. Huntsinger, J. R., & Ray, C. (2016). A Flexible Influence of Affective Feelings on Creative and Analytic Performance. Emotion, 16(6), 826–837. Hao, N., Yuan, H., Cheng, R., Wang, Q., & Runco, M. A. (2015). Interaction effect of response medium and working memory capacity on creative idea generation.?Frontiers in Psychology,?6, 1-8. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.?American Psychologist,?58(9), 697–720. Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning.?Journal of Experimental Psychology General,?133(2), 189–217. Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: measurement, correlates, consequences.?Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity & the Arts,?8(1), 62–70. Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Psychology, 65(1), 71–79. Kounios, J., Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., & Bowden, E. M., et al. (2008). The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity.?Neuropsychologia,?46(1), 281–291. Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., & Parrish, T. B., et al. (2006). The prepared mind: neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight.Psychological Science,?17(10), 882–890. Lin, W. L., Hsu, K. Y., Chen, H. C., & Wang, J. W. (2012). The relations of gender and personality traits on different creativities: a dual-process theory account.?Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity & the Arts,?6(2), 112–123. Lin, W. L., & Lien. Y. W. (2013). The different role of working memory in open-ended versus closed-ended creative problem solving: a dual-process theory account.?Creativity Research Journal,?25(1), 85–96. Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,?96(4), 730–743. Mccabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L. R., Mcdaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The relationship between working memory capacity and executive functioning: evidence for a common executive attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24(2), 222–260. Mccarthy, S. W., Malony, J. M., & Morrison, R. G. (2013). Insight Follows Incubation In The Compound Remote Associates Task.?Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35(35), 3008–3013. Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower.?Psychological Review,?106(1), 3–19. ?llinger M, Fedor, A., Brodt, S., & Szathmáry, E. (2017). Insight into the ten-penny problem: guiding search by constraints and maximization.?Psychological Research,?81(5), 925–938. Pringle,?A., & Sowden, P. T. (2017). Unearthing the creative thinking process: Fresh insights from a think-aloud study of garden design. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity & the Arts,?11(3): 344–358. Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Kounios, J., Bowden, E., & Beeman, M. (2016). Insight solutions are correct more often than analytic solutions.?Thinking & Reasoning,?22(4), 1–18. Wangbing Shen, Yuan Yuan, Chang Liu & Jing Luo.(2017). The roles of the temporal lobe in creative insight: an integrated review. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(4), 321–375. Simon, H. A., & Reed, S. K. (1976). Modeling strategy shifts in a problem-solving task. Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 86–97. Smith, E. R., & Decoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems.?Personality & Social Psychology Review,?4(2), 108–131. Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,?21(3), 415–432. Teasdale, J. D. (1999). Multi-level theories of cognition–emotion relations. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion, 665–681. Thomas, J. C., Jr. (1974). An analysis of behavior in the Hobbits-Orcs problem. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 257–269. Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference.?Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,?28(08), 211–279. Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory.?Psychological Review,?114(1), 104–132. Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498–505. 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(2), 1–22. Wegbreit, E., Suzuki, S., Grabowecky, M., Kounios, J., & Beeman, A. M. (2012). Visual attention modulates insight versus analytic solving of verbal problems.?Journal of Problem Solving,?4(2), 94–115. Wiley, J., & Jarosz, A. (2012). Working memory capacity, attentional focus, and problem solving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 258–262. Zhao, Q., Zhou, Z., Xu, H., Fan, W., & Han, L. (2014). Neural pathway in the right hemisphere underlies verbal insight problem solving.?Neuroscience,?256(1), 334–341.