School of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Br J Psychol. 2010 Feb;101(Pt 1):81-93. doi: 10.1348/000712609X422656. Epub 2009 Mar 20.
Two groups of participants attempted eight examples of each of four different problem types formed by combining insight versus non-insight and verbal versus spatial factors. The groups were given different verbalization instructions viz., Silent (N=40) or Direct Concurrent (N=40). There were significant differences between insight and non-insight tasks and between spatial and verbal tasks in terms of solution rates and latencies. Significant interactions between the verbal versus spatial factor and verbalization condition on solution rates and latencies reflected a greater (negative) effect of verbalizing on spatial as against verbal problems. However, no significant interactions of the insight versus non-insight factor with verbalization condition on solution rates or latencies were found. These results favoured the 'business as usual' view of insight problem solving as against the 'special process' view which predicted larger effects of verbalization for insight problems as against non-insight problems.
两组参与者分别尝试了四种不同问题类型的每一种的八个例子，这些问题类型是通过将顿悟与非顿悟以及言语与空间因素相结合形成的。这两组参与者被给予了不同的言语化指导，即静默（N=40）或直接并发（N=40）。在解决率和潜伏期方面，顿悟任务与非顿悟任务之间以及空间任务与言语任务之间存在显著差异。言语与空间因素与言语化条件之间的显著交互作用反映了言语化对空间问题比对言语问题的影响更大（负面）。然而，在解决率或潜伏期方面，顿悟与非顿悟因素与言语化条件之间没有发现显著的交互作用。这些结果支持了“按部就班”的顿悟问题解决观点，而不是“特殊过程”观点，后者预测言语化对顿悟问题的影响比对非顿悟问题的影响更大。
