Laukkonen Ruben E, Tangen Jason M
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 9;9:282. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00282. eCollection 2018.
Arguably, it is not possible to study insight moments during problem solving without being able to accurately detect when they occur (Bowden and Jung-Beeman, 2007). Despite over a century of research on the insight moment, there is surprisingly little consensus on the best way to measure them in real-time experiments. There have also been no attempts to evaluate whether the different ways of measuring insight converge. Indeed, if it turns out that the popular measures of insight , then this may indicate that researchers who have used one method may have been measuring a different phenomenon to those who have used another method. We compare the strengths and weaknesses of the two most commonly cited ways of measuring insight: The feelings-of-warmth measure adapted from Metcalfe and Wiebe (1987), and the self-report measure adapted from Bowden and Jung-Beeman (2007). We find little empirical agreement between the two measures, and conclude that the self-report measure of Aha! is superior both methodologically and theoretically, and provides a better representation of what is commonly regarded as insight. We go on to describe and recommend a novel measure of insight using a dynamometer as described in Creswell et al. (2016).
可以说,如果无法准确检测到顿悟时刻何时发生,就不可能在解决问题的过程中研究顿悟时刻(鲍登和荣格 - 比曼,2007)。尽管对顿悟时刻进行了一个多世纪的研究,但在实时实验中测量它们的最佳方法上,令人惊讶的是几乎没有共识。也没有人尝试评估测量顿悟的不同方法是否趋同。事实上,如果事实证明流行的顿悟测量方法不同,那么这可能表明使用一种方法的研究人员所测量的现象与使用另一种方法的研究人员所测量的现象不同。我们比较了两种最常被引用的测量顿悟方法的优缺点:改编自梅特卡夫和威伯(1987)的温暖感测量方法,以及改编自鲍登和荣格 - 比曼(2007)的自我报告测量方法。我们发现这两种测量方法之间几乎没有实证上的一致性,并得出结论,“啊哈!”的自我报告测量方法在方法论和理论上都更优越,并且能更好地体现通常被视为顿悟的内容。我们接着描述并推荐一种如克雷斯韦尔等人(2016)所述的使用测力计的新颖顿悟测量方法。