Danek Amory H, Fraps Thomas, von Müller Albrecht, Grothe Benedikt, Ollinger Michael
Division of Neurobiology, Department Biology II, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Grosshaderner Straße 2, 82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany.
Trick 17 magic concepts, Neureutherstr. 17, 80799 Munich, Germany.
Cognition. 2014 Feb;130(2):174-85. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.003. Epub 2013 Dec 1.
We propose a new approach to differentiate between insight and noninsight problem solving, by introducing magic tricks as problem solving domain. We argue that magic tricks are ideally suited to investigate representational change, the key mechanism that yields sudden insight into the solution of a problem, because in order to gain insight into the magicians' secret method, observers must overcome implicit constraints and thus change their problem representation. In Experiment 1, 50 participants were exposed to 34 different magic tricks, asking them to find out how the trick was accomplished. Upon solving a trick, participants indicated if they had reached the solution either with or without insight. Insight was reported in 41.1% of solutions. The new task domain revealed differences in solution accuracy, time course and solution confidence with insight solutions being more likely to be true, reached earlier, and obtaining higher confidence ratings. In Experiment 2, we explored which role self-imposed constraints actually play in magic tricks. 62 participants were presented with 12 magic tricks. One group received verbal cues, providing solution relevant information without giving the solution away. The control group received no informative cue. Experiment 2 showed that participants' constraints were suggestible to verbal cues, resulting in higher solution rates. Thus, magic tricks provide more detailed information about the differences between insightful and noninsightful problem solving, and the underlying mechanisms that are necessary to have an insight.
我们提出了一种新方法,通过引入魔术作为问题解决领域,来区分顿悟式和非顿悟式问题解决。我们认为魔术非常适合用于研究表象改变,这是对问题解决方案产生突然顿悟的关键机制,因为为了洞察魔术师的秘密方法,观察者必须克服隐性限制,从而改变他们对问题的表征。在实验1中,50名参与者观看了34个不同的魔术,要求他们找出魔术是如何完成的。在解决一个魔术之后,参与者表明他们是通过顿悟还是非顿悟得出解决方案的。在41.1%的解决方案中报告有顿悟。新的任务领域揭示了在解决方案准确性、时间进程和解决方案信心方面的差异,顿悟式解决方案更有可能是正确的,得出时间更早,并且获得更高的信心评级。在实验2中,我们探究了自我施加的限制在魔术中实际发挥的作用。62名参与者观看了12个魔术。一组收到言语提示,提供与解决方案相关的信息但不透露解决方案。对照组没有收到有用的提示。实验2表明参与者的限制容易受到言语提示的影响,从而提高了解决率。因此,魔术提供了关于顿悟式和非顿悟式问题解决之间差异以及产生顿悟所需潜在机制的更详细信息。