The role of training or hints relating to “thinking in opposites” in insight problem solving

In recent years, there has been a growing desire to remove the mystery from insight, the underlying processes of which are not fully understood (Gilhooly et al., 2015). The present research focuses on the hypothesis that “thinking in opposites” might facilitate the process of representational change required for solving visuo-spatial insight problems (Bianchi et al., 2019; Branchini et al., 2015, 2016). There is evidence in Cognitive Science that opposites (or contrasts) are a central cognitive structure in space perception (e.g. Bianchi et al., 2017) and language (e.g. Jones et al., 2012) and they are fundamental to inductive (Gale and Ball, 2012) and deductive reasoning (Augustinova, 2008). They are also involved in creative thinking (Rothenberg, 2001). In particular, the study reports the results of research carried out with the aim of investigating whether prompting problem solvers to use a strategy based on the manipulation of opposites (i.e. inside-outside, large-small) would improve their performance (Bianchi et al., 2019). Two hundred and forty undergraduate students were asked to analyze the spatial features inherent to six problems in terms of opposites before embarking on their search for a solution. Two hint and two training conditions were studied. The results show that success rates increased when the participants were explicitly trained to use opposites. In relation to the current debate on the factors which facilitate insight problem solving (e.g. Ahmed and Patrick, 2006; Cunningham and MacGregor, 2008; Patrick et al., 2015), our results add evidence that a prompt “to think in opposites” is a facilitating factor when it is given explicitly (i.e. as part of training). The findings are also discussed in relation to a debate on the same subject regarding the differences between the role of Type 1 processes (which are automatic, unconscious and associative) and that of Type 2 processes (which are controlled, conscious and analytical) (e. g. Weisberg, 2015, 2018). In particular, we provide suggestions concerning the nature of the role of opposites in the generation of potential solutions (Type 1 processes) and in the evaluation of these various potential alternatives with a view to homing in on a single solution (Type 2 processes).