FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2612288257> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2612288257 abstract "Cue–Readiness in Insight Problem–Solving Hiroaki Suzuki (susan@ri.aoyama.ac.jp) Keiga Abe (a1297007@cc.aoyama.ac.jp) Department of Education, Aoyama Gakuin University Tokyo 150-8366 JAPAN Kazuo Hiraki (hiraki@idea.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp) Department of Systems Science, The University of Tokyo Tokyo, 153-8902 Michiko Miyazaki (miyazaki@psyche.tp.titech.ac.jp) Tokyo Institute of Technology Tokyo, 152-8552 JAPAN Abstract This paper explores a mechanism underlying cue- readiness in insight problem-solving. Cue-readiness is concerned with situations where previously neglected in- formation suddenly and unexpectedly becomes illumina- tive. From the view point of dynamic constraint relax- ation theory (Suzuki & Hiraki, 1997), this can be ex- plained by constraint relaxation caused by noticing fail- ures. The theory predicts that constraint violations in- crease during the problem-solving process, and that a specific combination of constraint violations takes place which leads people to an insight. In this paper, we exam- ined the time-course differences of frequencies of con- straint violations, and of sensitivity to the crucial infor- mation using a rating task. Although Experiment 1 did not provide supporting evidence, in Experiment 2 we found increased frequency of constraint violations during problem-solving, and that subjects who experienced more failure were more sensitive to crucial information. These results are discussed in terms of other theories of insight. Insight, one of the most outstanding cognitive activi- ties, is more and more a topic within the scope of rig- orous scientific investigation. For the past decade, var- ious approaches have been taken to explore the nature and processes of insight (see, for example, Sternberg & Davidson, 1995). However, there still remains a mystery. People some- times find a crucial cue in a relative early stage of problem-solving, but they cannot make use of it. This cue, however, suddenly and unexpectedly becomes illu- minative at a certain point, leading problem-solvers to an insight. To put it another way, the same cue has differ- ent meanings during the problem-solving process. This can be called “cue-readiness” because it appears analo- gous to developmental readiness in that the effectiveness of instructional intervention depends on the child’s de- velopmental stage. A good example of the cue-readiness is found in Kaplan and Simon (1990). They used the mutilated checkerboard (MC) puzzle as a material. To solve this puzzle, it is crucial to realize the parity of differently col- ored squares. In order to control the ease of noticing par- ity, some subjects in their experiment were given a spe- cial board where a word, Bread or Butter, was printed on each square (bread and butter connote parity), instead of colors black or pink. As they predicted, subjects noticed parity more easily and solved the puzzle more quickly. However, they reported one puzzling result. The times from their first mention of parity to the final solution were longer for these subjects than those who were given a standard checkerboard or blank one. While subjects with a Bread–Butter board took 653 s on average to solve the puzzle from their first mention of parity, those with a standard checkerboard took only 110 s. The problem immediately poses the questions of why people can make use of the crucial cue that they could not do so initially, and what distinguishes the internal states in these two situations. This problem cannot easily be explained by current theories. Theories based on spread of activation presup- pose that the inappropriate problem representations pre- vent problem-solvers from retrieving an important cue. If this explanation is correct, people could solve the puz- zle immediately after noticing the important cue, because the representation of the cue should be activated and the activation spreads over to related information. In the MC puzzle case, subjects could obtain an insight immediately after they mentioned parity. The idea of the prepared-mind proposed by Seifert et al. (1995) appears to be relevant to the cue-readiness problem. According to them, when people find a stan- dard approach inappropriate, they generate failure in- dices that mark initial problem solving attempts as un- successful. These failure indices are presumed to have the special status in long-term memory, in the sense that they are activated for a longer period than other types of memory traces. In the incubation phase where peo- ple stop their initial attempts and are engaged in other activities, a relevant cue is sometimes provided exter- nally, which reminds them of their initial failure and leads them to an AHA experience. We agree that fail- ure and externally provided information play important roles. However, this idea cannot be applied directly to the cue-readiness problem, because their idea deals with a situation where people do not encounter or find cru- cial information in the initial phase but are given that in- formation externally in the incubation phase. The cue- readiness problem is, however, concerned with a situa- tion where people find crucial information in the initial stage. In order to deal with the cue-readiness problem, we have developed a dynamic constraint relaxation theory of insight (Suzuki & Hiraki, 1997; Hiraki & Suzuki, 1998)." @default.
• W2612288257 created "2017-05-19" @default.
• W2612288257 creator A5009563521 @default.
• W2612288257 creator A5029744313 @default.
• W2612288257 creator A5056202360 @default.
• W2612288257 creator A5089313549 @default.
• W2612288257 date "2001-01-01" @default.
• W2612288257 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2612288257 title "Cue-Readiness in Insight Problem-Solving" @default.
• W2612288257 cites W1775174774 @default.
• W2612288257 cites W183625566 @default.
• W2612288257 cites W1991218162 @default.
• W2612288257 cites W1994335990 @default.
• W2612288257 cites W2113605117 @default.
• W2612288257 cites W2293668112 @default.
• W2612288257 cites W2461882158 @default.
• W2612288257 cites W2990985334 @default.
• W2612288257 cites W3035258717 @default.
• W2612288257 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W2612288257 type Work @default.
• W2612288257 sameAs 2612288257 @default.
• W2612288257 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2612288257 countsByYear W26122882572012 @default.
• W2612288257 countsByYear W26122882572014 @default.
• W2612288257 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2612288257 hasAuthorship W2612288257A5009563521 @default.
• W2612288257 hasAuthorship W2612288257A5029744313 @default.
• W2612288257 hasAuthorship W2612288257A5056202360 @default.
• W2612288257 hasAuthorship W2612288257A5089313549 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C2776029896 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C2776036281 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C2778012447 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C2780451532 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C73440236 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C11171543 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C145420912 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C154945302 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C15744967 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C162324750 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C180747234 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C187736073 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C188147891 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C199360897 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C2524010 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C2776029896 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C2776036281 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C2778012447 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C2780451532 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C33923547 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C41008148 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C73440236 @default.
• W2612288257 hasConceptScore W2612288257C77805123 @default.
• W2612288257 hasIssue "23" @default.
• W2612288257 hasLocation W26122882571 @default.
• W2612288257 hasOpenAccess W2612288257 @default.
• W2612288257 hasPrimaryLocation W26122882571 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W1648870906 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W1986758163 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W1998707804 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2022038946 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2032748974 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2052837396 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2053515303 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2056280152 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2070082386 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2136288907 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2147750656 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2152548506 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2346814322 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2396937662 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2748119493 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2883920902 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W3039934809 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W72584535 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W1822348806 @default.
• W2612288257 hasRelatedWork W2223330692 @default.
• W2612288257 hasVolume "23" @default.
• W2612288257 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2612288257 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2612288257 magId "2612288257" @default.
• W2612288257 workType "article" @default.