Attention and Working Memory in Insight Problem-Solving

Attention and Working Memory in Insight Problem-Solving M. Aisling Murray (murray.aisling@gmail.com) Department of Psychology, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Ireland Ruth M. J. Byrne (rmbyrne@tcd.ie) Department of Psychology, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Ireland Abstract Individuals differ in their ability to solve insight problems. We suggest that differences in attention switching and working memory skills underlie differences in insight problem solving ability. We consider the results of an experiment that shows that correct performance on a range of insight problems is related to correct performance on measures of attention-switching and working memory storage and processing, but not to measures of selective attention and sustained attention. We discuss the implications of the results for understanding the component processes in insight problem solving. Keywords: Insight; problem-solving; individual differences; attention; working memory. Introduction Suppose you are asked to describe how to throw a ping-pong ball so that it will travel a short distance, come to a dead stop and then reverse itself (Ansburg and Dominowski, 2000). You are not allowed to bounce it off any surface or tie anything to it. Some individuals solve the problem readily. Others never do. Some people suggest putting a back-spin on the ball (which will not work), or throwing it to another person (which violates the requirement for the ball to stop and return by itself). Although the problem initially seems impossible, there is a simple answer. Throw the ball straight up in the air and gravity will cause it to stop for an instant before falling back to earth. Many people assume that the ball must travel forward and back but once they realise it can also go up and down, the solution follows readily (Murray and Byrne, 2005a). Why do individuals differ in their ability to solve insight problems? Our aim in this paper is to consider some of the component skills upon which insight problem solving depends (see also Murray and Byrne, 2005b). Insight problems usually require some kind of change to the initial interpretation of the problem and its anticipated solution (Weisberg, 1995). For example, in the ping-pong ball problem, a successful solution requires a change from a horizontal trajectory to a vertical one. People must possess some knowledge to solve insight problems, for example, knowledge about the effects of gravity. Insight problems tend to be ‘ill-defined’, that is there is some ambiguity about what the problem requires, or what form the solution will take. They are often more difficult to solve than they at first appear and sometimes the solution occurs suddenly to the solver in an ‘aha’ moment (e.g. Duncker, 1945). One view is that solving insight problems may not require different processes from solving non-insight problems such as mathematics problems (Weisberg & Alba, 1981; review in Mayer, 1995). Another view is that there are key differences between the two sorts of problems (e.g., Metcalfe and Wiebe, 1987). For example, participants can more accurately predict their future success given a second chance at an unsolved non-insight problem compared to an unsolved insight problem. Their ratings of how close they feel to a solution when they work on a non-insight problem exhibit an incremental pattern as they neared a correct solution, but for insight problems it remained uniformly low until a sudden increase just before the solution (Metcalfe and Wiebe, 1987). Many studies have identified empirical differences between insight and non-insight problems (Schooler, Ohlsson and Brooks, 1993; Lavric, Forstmeier and Rippon, 2000; Gilhooly and Murphy, 2004; Jung-Beeman, Bowden, Haberman, Frymiare, Arambel-Liu, Greenblatt, Reber and Kounios, Our aim is to consider the component skills required in insight problem-solving. We have suggested that people need to keep in mind several alternative possibilities to solve insight problems (Murray and Byrne, 2005a). Individuals may have difficulty in keeping in mind alternatives because multiple possibilities can exceed their working memory capacity (Byrne, 2005; Johnson-Laird and Byrne, 1991; 2002). They also need to be able to switch their attention between the alternative possibilities to reach a solution. On this account, key component skills required in insight problem solving include attention switching and working memory skills. To test this view, we examined a range of insight and non-insight problems. We measured attention switching, sustained attention, and selective attention, and several aspects of working memory, including working memory storage and working memory storage plus capacity. Attention and working memory may be crucial for different aspects of successful insight problem solving. Planning a number of moves in advance may be important to solve insight problems such as the well-known nine-dot problem (Chronicle, Ormerod and MacGregor, 2001). Attention may play a role in helping people to decide what elements of a problem to focus on or in helping them to direct the search for relevant information internally and externally. Successful insight problem-solvers are more likely to switch strategies when they realize their current strategy is not working (Davidson, 1995). Some studies have suggested that directing people’s attention to a particular element of a