Cited by 192Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceCognitive Abilities and TestingDesign Education and Practice

Differentiating insight from non-insight problems

Gilhooly, KJ, Murphy, P·2005·Thinking & Reasoning

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate whether a range of tasks that have been generally classed as requiring insight form an empirically separable group of tasks distinct from tasks generally classed as non-insight. In this study, 24 insight tasks, 10 non-insight tasks, and tests of individual differences in cognitive abilities and working memory were administered to 60 participants. Cluster analysis of the problem-solving tasks indicated that the presumed insight problems did tend to cluster with other presumed insight problems, and similarly the presumed non-insight problems tended to cluster with other presumed non-insight tasks. Performance on presumed insight problems was particularly linked to measures of ideational flexibility with a different pattern of results for the non-insight tasks. Spatial insight problems were linked to spatial flexibility and verbal insight tasks were linked to vocabulary scores. The results are discussed in relation to recent developments of dual process theories of thinking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13546780442000187

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Classic insight problems do not usually trigger an attractive alternative response, whereas the three CRT problems trigger a strong alternative response that must be overridden.

    “Classic insight problems (see Gilhooly & Fioratou, 2009;Gilhooly & Murphy, 2005) do not usually trigger an attractive alternative response.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilhooly, K., & Murphy, P.
Affiliations
Brunel University of London (GB)
Venue
Thinking & Reasoning
Published
2005-08
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
279-302
ISSN
  • 1354-6783 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0708
OpenAlex
W2038282880
Cited by
192
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Thinking & Reasoning (publishedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
Keywords
insight problem solving, problem-solving tasks, spatial flexibility, vocabulary, working memory, individual differences, dual-process theory, task classification

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