Editing Insight (section)

===Specific results===

====Versus non-insight problems====
Two clusters of problems, those solvable by insight and those not requiring insight to solve, have been observed.<ref name= "Gilhooly & Murphy (2005)">{{cite journal|last1=Gilhooly|first1=K.J.|last2= Murphy| first2= P.|title=Differentiating insight from non-insight problems| journal= Thinking & Reasoning|date=1 August 2005|volume=11|issue=3|pages=279–302 |doi= 10.1080/13546780442000187| s2cid=144379831}}</ref> A person's cognitive flexibility, [[fluency]], and vocabulary ability are predictive of performance on insight problems, but not on non-insight problems.<ref name="Gilhooly & Murphy (2005)" /> In contrast, [[Fluid and crystallized intelligence|fluid intelligence]] is mildly predictive of performance on non-insight problems, but not on insight problems.<ref name="Gilhooly & Murphy (2005)" /> More recent research suggests that rather than {{clarify|text=insight versus search|reason=what's that?|date=August 2023}}, that the subjective feeling of insight varies, with some solutions experienced with a stronger feeling of ''Aha'' than others.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal|last1=Webb| first1= Margaret E. |last2= Little |first2= Daniel R.| last3= Cropper| first3= Simon J. |year= 2016 |title= Insight Is Not in the Problem: Investigating Insight in Problem Solving across Task Types |journal= [[Frontiers in Psychology]] |language= en| volume= 7 |page= 1424 |doi= 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01424 |pmid= 27725805 |pmc= 5035735|issn=1664-1078| doi-access= free }}
|2={{Cite journal|last1=Danek|first1=Amory H. |last2= Fraps |first2= Thomas |last3= von Müller| first3= Albrecht |last4= Grothe |first4= Benedikt |last5= Öllinger |first5= Michael |display-authors= 3 |date=2014-12-08 |title=It's a kind of magic—what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving|journal=Frontiers in Psychology| volume= 5|page=1408|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01408|issn=1664-1078 |pmc= 4258999 |pmid=25538658|doi-access=free}} }}</ref>

====Emotion====
People in a better mood are more likely to solve problems using insight.<ref name="Subramaniam, Kounios, Parrish & Jung-Beeman (2009)">{{cite journal|last1=Subramaniam|first1=Karuna |last2=Kounios|first2=John |last3=Parrish|first3= Todd B. |last4=Jung-Beeman|first4= Mark |display-authors= 3 |title=A Brain Mechanism for Facilitation of Insight by Positive Affect|journal= [[Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience]] | date=1 March 2009|volume=21|issue=3|pages=415–432|doi=10.1162/jocn.2009.21057|pmid=18578603|s2cid=7133900 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Self-reported positive affect of participants increased insight before and during the solving of a problem,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Shen | first1 = W. | last2 = Yuan | first2 = Y. | last3 = Liu | first3 = C. | last4 = Luo | first4 = J. | display-authors= 3| year = 2015 | title = In search of the 'Aha!' experience: Elucidating the emotionality of insight problem-solving | journal = British Journal of Psychology | volume =  107| issue = 2| pages =  281–298| doi = 10.1111/bjop.12142 | pmid = 26184903 }}</ref> {{clarify|text=as indicated by differing brain activity patterns|reason=did this study use "self-reporting" or "brain activity patterns"?|date=August 2023}}.<ref name="Subramaniam, Kounios, Parrish & Jung-Beeman (2009)" /> People experiencing anxiety showed the opposite effect, and solved fewer problems by insight.<ref name="Subramaniam, Kounios, Parrish & Jung-Beeman (2009)" /> Emotion can also be considered: whether this is a positive ''Aha'' or negative ''Uh-oh'' moment.<ref name=":0" /> In order to have insights it is important to have access to one's emotions and sensations, as these can cause insights. To the degree that individuals have limited introspective access to these underlying causes, they have only limited control over these processes as well.<ref>{{cite book|editor-first1=Howard|editor-last1=Tennen|editor-first2=Jerry|editor-last2=Suls|year=2013|title=Handbook of Psychology|volume=5: Personality and Social Psychology|publisher=Wiley|location=New Jersey|page=53}}</ref>

====Incubation====
Using a geometric and spatial insight problem, it was found that providing participants with breaks improved their performance when compared to participants who did not receive a break.<ref name="Segal (2004)">{{cite journal |last= Segal |first= Eliaz |title=Incubation in Insight Problem Solving|journal=Creativity Research Journal|date=1 March 2004| volume= 16 |issue= 1 |pages=141–48|doi=10.1207/s15326934crj1601_13|s2cid=145742283}}</ref> However, the length of incubation between problems did not matter. Thus, participants' performance on insight problems improved just as much with a short break (4 minutes) as it did with a long break (12 minutes).<ref name="Segal (2004)" />

====Sleep====
Research has shown [[sleep]] to help produce insight.<ref name="Wagner, Gais, Haider, Verleger & Born (2004)">{{cite journal |last1= Wagner|first1=Ullrich |last2=Gais|first2=Steffen |last3=Haider|first3= Hilde |last4=Verleger|first4= Rolf |last5=Born|first5=Jan| display-authors= 3| title= Sleep inspires insight|journal=Nature|date=22 January 2004|volume=427|issue=6972|pages=352–355 |doi= 10.1038/nature02223|pmid=14737168|bibcode=2004Natur.427..352W |s2cid=4405704 }}</ref> People were initially trained on insight problems. Following training, one group was tested on the insight problems after sleeping for eight hours at night, one group was tested after staying awake all night, and one group was tested after staying awake all day. Those that slept performed twice as well on the insight problems than those who stayed awake.<ref name="Wagner, Gais, Haider, Verleger & Born (2004)" />

====In the brain====
{{See also|Eureka effect#Evidence for the Aha! effect in EEG studies}}
Differences in brain activation in the left and right hemisphere seem to be indicative of insight versus non-insight solutions.<ref name="Bowden & Beeman (2003)">{{cite journal|last1=Bowden|first1=Edward M.|last2=Jung-Beeman|first2=Mark|title=Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere|journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review|date=1 September 2003|volume=10|issue=3|pages=730–737|doi=10.3758/BF03196539|pmid=14620371|doi-access=free}}</ref> Presenting RATs either to the left or right visual field, it was shown that participants having solved the problem with insight were more likely to have been shown the RAT on the left visual field, indicating right hemisphere processing. This provides evidence that the right hemisphere plays a special role in insight.<ref name="Bowden & Beeman (2003)"/>

[[fMRI]] and [[EEG]] scans of participants completing RATs demonstrated particular brain activity corresponding to problems solved by insight.<ref name=" Kounios & Beeman (2009)" /> For example, there is high EEG activity in the alpha- and gamma-band about 300 milliseconds before participants indicated a solution to insight problems, but not to non-insight problems.<ref name= "Kounios & Beeman (2009)" /> Additionally, problems solved by insight corresponded to increased activity in the temporal lobes and mid-frontal cortex, while more activity in the [[posterior cortex]] corresponded to non-insight problems.<ref name="Kounios & Beeman (2009)" />  The data suggests there is something different occurring in the brain when solving insight versus non-insight problems that happens right before the solving of the problem. This conclusion has been supported also by eye-tracking data that shows an increased eye blink duration and frequency when people solve problems via insight. This latter result, {{clarify|text=paired with an eye pattern oriented to look away from sources of visual inputs|reason=paired how, by whom? is this observed or induced?|date=August 2023}} (such as looking at blank wall, or out the window at the sky) proves different attention involvement in insight problem solving vs. problem solving via analysis.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Salvi |first1= Carola |last2= Bricolo |first2= Emanuela |last3= Franconeri |first3= Steven|last4=Kounios|first4=John|last5=Beeman|first5=Mark|title=Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs|journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review|date=December 2015|volume=22|issue=6|pages=1814–1819|doi=10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0|pmid=26268431|doi-access=free|hdl=10281/93524|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

====Group insight====
Groups typically perform better on insight problems (in the form of [[Rebus|rebus puzzles]] with either helpful or unhelpful clues) than individuals.<ref name="Smith, Bushouse, Lord (2010)">{{cite journal| last1= Smith |first1= C. M.| last2= Bushouse| first2= E. | last3 =Lord| first3= J. |title=Individual and group performance on insight problems: The effects of experimentally induced fixation|journal=Group Processes & Intergroup Relations|date=13 November 2009 |volume= 13 |issue= 1|pages=91–99|doi=10.1177/1368430209340276|s2cid=35914153|url=https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=psy_articles|url-access=subscription}}</ref> 
[[File:RAT Problem, DLW.png|thumb|left|Example of a rebus puzzle. Answer: man overboard.]] 
Additionally, while incubation improves insight performance for individuals, it improves insight performance for groups even more.<ref name="Smith, Bushouse, Lord (2010)" /> Thus, after a 15-minute break, individual performance improved for the rebus puzzles with unhelpful clues, and group performance improved for rebus puzzles with both unhelpful and helpful clues.<ref name="Smith, Bushouse, Lord (2010)" />

====Individual differences====
Participants who ranked lower on emotionality and higher on openness to experience performed better on insight problems. Men outperformed women on insight problems, and women outperformed men on non-insight problems.<ref name="Lin, Hsu, Chen, Wang (2011)">{{cite journal|last1=Lin|first1=Wei-Lun |last2=Hsu|first2=Kung-Yu |last3=Chen|first3=Hsueh-Chih |last4=Wang|first4=Jenn-Wu |display-authors= 3 |title=The relations of gender and personality traits on different creativities: A dual-process theory account |journal=Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts|year=2011| doi= 10.1037/a0026241 |volume= 6 |issue= 2 |pages=112–123|s2cid=55632785 }}</ref>

Higher intelligence (higher [[IQ]]) is associated with better performance on insight problems. However, those of lower intelligence benefit more than those of higher intelligence from being provided with cues and hints for insight problems.<ref name="Nature of insight" />

A large-scale study in Australia suggests that insight may not be universally experienced, with almost 20% of respondents reporting that they had not experienced insight.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Ovington|first1=Linda A. |last2= Saliba|first2=Anthony J.|last3=Moran|first3=Carmen C.|last4=Goldring|first4=Jeremy|last5=MacDonald|first5=Jasmine B.|display-authors= 3| date=2015-11-01|title=Do People Really Have Insights in the Shower? The When, Where and Who of the Aha! Moment|journal=The Journal of Creative Behavior|volume=52|language=en|pages=21–34|doi=10.1002/jocb.126|issn=2162-6057}}</ref>

====Metacognition====
People are poorer at predicting their own [[metacognition]] for insight problems, than for non-insight problems.<ref name="Metcalfe & Wiebe (1987)">{{cite journal|last1=Metcalfe|first1=Janet|first2=David|last2= Wiebe|title=Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving|journal=Memory & Cognition|year=1987|volume=15|issue=3|pages=238–246| doi= 10.3758/BF03197722 |pmid= 3600264|doi-access=free}}</ref> People were asked to indicate how "hot" or "cold" to a solution they felt. Generally, they were able to predict this fairly well for non-insight problems, but not for insight problems.<ref name= "Metcalfe & Wiebe (1987)" /> This provides evidence for the suddenness involved during insight.

====Naturalistic settings====
Accounts of insight that have been reported in the media, such as in interviews, etc., were examined and coded.<ref name="Klein & Jarosz (2011)">{{cite journal| last1= Klein |first1= G.| last2= Jarosz| first2= A.|title=A Naturalistic Study of Insight |journal= [[Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making]] |date=17 November 2011|volume=5|issue=4|pages=335–351|doi=10.1177/1555343411427013|doi-access=free}}</ref> Insights that occur in the field are typically reported to be associated with a sudden "change in understanding" and with "seeing connections and contradictions" in the problem.<ref name="Klein & Jarosz (2011)" /> Insight in nature differed from insight in the laboratory. For example, insight in nature was often rather gradual, not sudden, and incubation was not as important.<ref name="Klein & Jarosz (2011)" />

Other studies used online questionnaires to explore insight outside of the laboratory,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jarman|first=Matthew S.|date=2014-07-01| title= Quantifying the Qualitative: Measuring the Insight Experience|journal=Creativity Research Journal| volume= 26| issue= 3|pages=276–288|doi=10.1080/10400419.2014.929405|s2cid=144300757|issn=1040-0419}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> verifying the notion that insight often happens in situations such as in the shower,<ref name=":1" /> and echoing the idea that creative ideas occur in situations where divergent thought is more likely, sometimes called the Three "B"s of Creativity, in Bed, on the Bus, or in the Bath.

====Non-Human Animals====
Studies on [[primate cognition]] have provided evidence of what may be interpreted as insight in animals. In 1917, [[Wolfgang Köhler]] published his book ''[[The Mentality of Apes]]'', having studied primates on the island of [[Tenerife]] for six years. In one of his experiments, apes were presented with an insight problem that required the use of objects in new and original ways, in order to win a prize (usually, some kind of food). He observed that the animals would continuously fail to get the food, and this process occurred for quite some time; however, rather suddenly, they would purposefully use the object in the way needed to get the food, as if the realization had occurred out of nowhere. He interpreted this behavior as something resembling insight in apes.<ref name="Kohler (1925)">{{cite book|last=Köhler|first=Wolfgang|title=The mentality of apes|year=1999|publisher=Routledge|location=London|isbn=978-0-415-20979-3|edition=Repr.}}</ref> A more recent study suggested that elephants might also experience insight, showing that a young male elephant was able to identify and move a large cube under food that was out of reach so that he could stand on it to get the reward.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1= Foerder|first1=Preston|last2=Galloway|first2=Marie|last3=Barthel|first3=Tony III|last4= Moore |first4=Donald E.| last5= Reiss|first5=Diana |display-authors= 3 |date=2011-08-18|title=Insightful Problem Solving in an Asian Elephant| journal= PLOS ONE| volume= 6 |issue= 8|pages=e23251|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0023251|pmid=21876741|pmc=3158079|bibcode=2011PLoSO...623251F|issn=1932-6203|doi-access=free}}</ref>