Cited by 61Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceMemory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Science and Education Research

Immediate truth – Temporal contiguity between a cognitive problem and its solution determines experienced veracity of the solution

Topolinski, Sascha, Reber, Rolf·2010·Cognition

Abstract

A temporal contiguity hypothesis for the experience of veracity is tested which states that a solution candidate to a cognitive problem is more likely to be experienced as correct the faster it succeeds the problem. Experiment 1 varied the onset time of the appearance of proposed solutions to anagrams (50 ms vs. 150 ms) and found for both correct and incorrect candidates that faster appearing solutions were more frequently judged as being correct, although participants were not aware of the difference in onset delay. Experiment 2 replicated this effect with mathematical equations, shorter onset latencies (0 ms vs. 50 ms), and a reversed sequence (presenting first the solution and then the problem). Experiment 3 showed that the probability of judging a word as the solution of a remote associate insight problem decreases linearly with increasing onset delay (50 ms, 150 ms, 300 ms). Possible neurobiological-cognitive explanations for this effect are proposed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.009

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • By increasing people's confidence, such cues can affect their metacognitive control, leading people to decrease the effort they invest into further deliberate processing, as measured by thinking time and changes-of-mind.

    “By increasing people's confidence, such cues can affect their metacognitive control, leading people to decrease the effort they invest into further deliberate processing, as measured by thinking time and changes-of-mind [4,183,184].”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [183]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Topolinski, S., & Reber, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Topolinski, Sascha
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
114
Issue
1
Pages
117-122
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053302332
Cited by
61
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
temporal contiguity, honesty, insight problem solving, anagrams, equations, delayed onset
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Judgment, Language Tests, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Time Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review