Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Restructuring processes and Aha! experiences in insight problem solving

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 3, pages 42–55 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Insightful solution processes represent cases of problem solving in which the emergence of a new interpretation allows for an abrupt shift from bewilderment to clarity. One approach to researching insight problem solving emphasizes cognitive restructuring of the problem representation as a defining feature of the insightful solution process. By contrast, another approach emphasizes phenomenological Aha! experiences. In this Review, we summarize both approaches, considering the restructuring processes involved in finding a solution and the Aha! experiences that might accompany solutions. We then consider the extent to which Aha! experiences co-occur with restructuring, and the critical observation that sometimes they do not. We conclude by proposing avenues for future research that combine the methodologies used to study restructuring and Aha! experiences to better understand the cognitive and phenomenological underpinnings of insight problem solving and the connections between them.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Insightful solutions versus immediate and incremental processes.
Fig. 2: Examples of object-move problems used to study insight.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Duncker, K. On problem-solving. Psychol. Monogr. 58, 270 (1945).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ellen, P. Direction, past experience, and hints in creative problem solving: reply to Weisberg and Alba. J. Exp. Psychol. 111, 316–325 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Katona, G. Organizing and Memorizing: Studies in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching (Columbia Univ. Press, 1940).

  4. Köhler, W. An aspect of Gestalt psychology. Ped. Sem. J. Genet. Psychol. 32, 691–723 (1925).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Luchins, A. S. Mechanization in problem solving: the effect of Einstellung.Psychol. Monogr. 54, i–95 (1945).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maier, N. R. F. Reasoning in humans. I. On direction. J. Comp. Psychol. 10, 115–143 (1930).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maier, N. R. F. Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. J. Comp. Psychol. 12, 181–194 (1931).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wertheimer, M. Productive Thinking Enlarged edn (Harper and Brothers, 1945/1959).

  9. Ash, I. K., Cushen, P. J., & Wiley, J. Obstacles in investigating the role of restructuring in insightful problem solving. J. Probl. Solving https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1056 (2009).

  10. Ohlsson, S. in Advances in the Psychology of Thinking (eds Keane, M. T. & Gilhooly, K. J.) 1–44 (Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992).

  11. Ohlsson, S. Deep Learning: How the Mind Overrides Experience (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

  12. Bühler, K. Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge. II. Über Gedankenzusammenhänge. Arch. Gesamte Psychol. 12, 1–23 (1908).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bowden, E. M. The effect of reportable and unreportable hints on anagram solution and the Aha! Experience. Conscious. Cogn. 6, 545–573 (1997).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bowden, E. M., Jung-Beeman, M., Fleck, J. I. & Kounios, J. New approaches to demystifying insight. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 322–328 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Danek, A. H. in Routledge International Handbook of Creative Cognition (eds Ball, L. J. & Vallée-Tourangeau, F.) (Routledge, 2023).

  16. Kaplan, C. A. & Simon, H. A. In search of insight. Cogn. Psychol. 22, 374–419 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kounios, J. & Beeman, M. The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 71–93 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith, R. W. & Kounios, J. Sudden insight: all-or-none processing revealed by speed–accuracy decomposition. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22, 1443–1462 (1996).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gilhooly, K. J. Incubation and intuition in creative problem solving. Front. Psychol. 7, 1076 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Metcalfe, J. Premonitions of insight predict impending error. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 12, 623–634 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Metcalfe, J. & Wiebe, D. Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 15, 238–246 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. Human Problem Solving (Prentice-Hall, 1972).

  23. Davidson, J. E. in The Nature of Insight (eds Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E.) 125–155 (MIT Press, 1995).

  24. MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C. & Chronicle, E. P. Information processing and insight: a process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27, 176–201 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Weisberg, R. W. in The Nature of Insight (Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E.) 157–196 (MIT Press, 1995).

  26. Ash, I. K. & Wiley, J. The nature of restructuring in insight: an individual-differences approach. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 66–73 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cushen, P. J. & Wiley, J. Cues to solution, restructuring patterns, and reports of insight in creative problem solving. Consc. Cogn. 21, 1166–1175 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fedor, A., Szathmáry, E. & Öllinger, M. Problem solving stages in the five square problem. Front. Psychol. 6, 1050 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H. & Rhenius, D. Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 25, 1534–1555 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N. & Chronicle, E. P. Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28, 791–799 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B. & Öllinger, M. Working wonders? Investigating insight with magic tricks. Cognition 130, 174–185 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hedne, M. R., Norman, E. & Metcalfe, J. Intuitive feelings of warmth and confidence in insight and noninsight problem solving of magic tricks. Front. Psychol. 7, 1314 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Thomas, C., Didierjean, A. & Kuhn, G. It is magic! How impossible solutions prevent the discovery of obvious ones. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 2481–2487 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Danek, A. H., Wiley, J. & Öllinger, M. Solving classical insight problems without Aha! experience: 9 dot, 8 coin, and matchstick arithmetic problems. J. Probl. Solving https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1183 (2016).

  35. Gilhooly, K. J. & Murphy, P. Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Think. Reason. 11, 279–302 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Öllinger, M., Jones, G. & Knoblich, G. The dynamics of search, impasse, and representational change provide a coherent explanation of difficulty in the nine-dot problem. Psychol. Res. 78, 266–275 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Webb, M. E., Little, D. R. & Cropper, S. J. Insight is not in the problem: investigating insight in problem solving across task types. Front. Psychol. 7, 1424 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Dygert, S. K. & Jarosz, A. F. Individual differences in creative cognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 1249–1274 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. MacGregor, J. N. & Cunningham, J. B. Rebus puzzles as insight problems. Behav. Res. Meth. 40, 263–268 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Bricolo, E., Perugini, M. & Beeman, M. Validation of Italian rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems. Behav. Res. Meth. 48, 664–685 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith, S. M. & Blankenship, S. E. Incubation effects. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 27, 311–314 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Threadgold, E., Marsh, J. E. & Ball, L. J. Normative data for 84 UK English rebus puzzles. Front. Psychol. 9, 2513 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Mednick, S. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol. Rev. 69, 220–232 (1962).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bowden, E. M. & Beeman, M. J. Getting the right idea: semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychol. Sci. 9, 435–440 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthazard, C. & Parker, K. Intuition in the context of discovery. Cogn. Psychol. 22, 72–110 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Schooler, J. W. & Melcher, J. in The Creative Cognition Approach (Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B. & Finke, R. A.) 97–143 (MIT Press, 1995).

  47. Smith, S. M. & Blankenship, S. E. Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. Am. J. Psychol. 104, 61–87 (1991).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wiley, J. Expertise as mental set: the effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Mem. Cogn 26, 716–730 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Beeftink, F., Van Eerde, W. & Rutte, C. G. The effect of interruptions and breaks on insight and impasses: do you need a break right now? Creativ. Res. J. 20, 358–364 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Friedlander, K. J. & Fine, P. A. “The penny drops”: investigating insight through the medium of cryptic crosswords. Front. Psychol. 9, 904 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Bowden, E. M. & Jung-Beeman, M. Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 35, 634–639 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Cranford, E. A. & Moss, J. Is insight always the same? A protocol analysis of insight in compound remote associate problems. J. Probl. Solving 4, https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1129 (2012).

  53. Öllinger, M. & von Müller, A. Search and coherence-building in intuition and insight problem solving. Front. Psychol. 8, 827 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Zander, T., Öllinger, M. & Volz, K. G. Intuition and insight: two processes that build on each other or fundamentally differ? Front. Psychol. 7, 1395 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Ellis, J. J., Glaholt, M. G. & Reingold, E. M. Eye movements reveal solution knowledge prior to insight. Consc. Cogn. 20, 768–776 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Novick, L. R. & Sherman, S. J. On the nature of insight solutions: evidence from skill differences in anagram solution. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 56, 351–382 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rees, H. J. & Israel, H. E. An investigation of the establishment and operation of mental sets. Psychol. Monogr. 46, 1–26 (1935).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tempel, T. & Frings, C. Directed forgetting in problem solving. Acta Psychol. 201, 102955 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jacoby, L. L. On interpreting the effects of repetition: solving a problem versus remembering a solution. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 17, 649–667 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Koppel, R. H. & Storm, B. C. Unblocking memory through directed forgetting. J. Cogn. Psychol. 24, 901–907 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Smith, S. M. & Beda, Z. Old problems in new contexts: the context-dependent fixation hypothesis. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 192–197 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Auble, P. M., Franks, J. J. & Soraci, S. A. Effort toward comprehension: elaboration or “Aha”? Mem. Cogn. 7, 426–434 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bar-Hillel, M. Stumpers: an annotated compendium. Think. Reason. 27, 536–566 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bowden, E. M. Accessing relevant information during problem solving: time constraints on search in the problem space. Mem. Cogn. 13, 280–286 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Dow, G. T. & Mayer, R. E. Teaching students to solve insight problems: evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativ. Res. J. 16, 389–398 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Durso, F. T., Rea, C. B. & Dayton, T. Graph-theoretic confirmation of restructuring during insight. Psychol. Sci. 5, 94–98 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lockhart, R. S., Lamon, M. & Gick, M. L. Conceptual transfer in simple insight problems. Mem. Cogn. 16, 36–44 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Patrick, J. & Ahmed, A. Facilitating representation change in insight problems through training. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 40, 532–543 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Bar-Hillel, M., Noah, T. & Frederick, S. Solving stumpers, CRT and CRAT: are the abilities related? Judgm. Decis. Mak. 14, 620–623 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Webb, M. E., Little, D. R. & Cropper, S. J. Once more with feeling: normative data for the Aha experience in insight and noninsight problems. Behav. Res. Meth. 50, 2035–2056 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Beilock, S. L. & DeCaro, M. S. From poor performance to success under stress: working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33, 983–998 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. DeCaro, M. S., Van Stockum, C. A. & Wieth, M. B. When higher working memory capacity hinders insight. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 42, 39–49 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Van Stockum Jr, C. A. & DeCaro, M. S. When working memory mechanisms compete: predicting cognitive flexibility versus mental set. Cognition 201, 104313 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Koppel, R., George, T. & Wiley, J. in The Emergence of Insight (Cambridge Press, 2024).

  75. Bilalić, M., McLeod, P. & Gobet, F. The mechanism of the Einstellung (set) effect: a pervasive source of cognitive bias. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19, 111–115 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Sheridan, H. & Reingold, E. M. The mechanisms and boundary conditions of the Einstellung effect in chess: evidence from eye movements. PLoS One 8, e75796 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Ellis, J. J. & Reingold, E. M. The Einstellung effect in anagram problem solving: evidence from eye movements. Front. Psychol. 5, 679 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Beda, Z. & Smith, S. M. Chasing red herrings: memory of distractors causes fixation in creative problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 46, 671–684 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Howe, M. L. & Garner, S. R. Can false memories prime alternative solutions to ambiguous problems? Memory 26, 96–105 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Smith, S. M. in The Nature of Insight (Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E.) 229–251 (MIT Press, 1995).

  81. Kohn, N. & Smith, S. M. Partly versus completely out of your mind: effects of incubation and distraction on resolving fixation. J. Creativ. Behav. 43, 102–118 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Koppel, R. H. & Storm, B. C. Escaping mental fixation: incubation and inhibition in creative problem solving. Memory 22, 340–348 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. May, C. P. Synchrony effects in cognition: the costs and a benefit. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 6, 142–147 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Penaloza, A. A. & Calvillo, D. P. Incubation provides relief from artificial fixation in problem solving. Creativ. Res. J. 24, 338–344 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Storm, B. C. & Angello, G. Overcoming fixation: creative problem solving and retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1263–1265 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Storm, B. C. & Hickman, M. L. Mental fixation and metacognitive predictions of insight in creative problem solving. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 802–813 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Vul, E. & Pashler, H. Incubation benefits only after people have been misdirected. Mem. Cogn. 35, 701–710 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Ricks, T. R., Turley-Ames, K. J. & Wiley, J. Effects of working memory capacity on mental set due to domain knowledge. Mem. Cogn. 35, 1456–1462 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Dodds, R. A., Ward, T. B. & Smith, S. M. in Creativity Research Handbook (ed. Runco, M. A.) 291–322 (Hampton Press, 2012).

  90. Sio, U. N. & Ormerod, T. C. Does incubation enhance problem solving? A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 135, 94–120 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Caravona, L. & Macchi, L. Different incubation tasks in insight problem solving: evidence for unconscious analytic thought. Think. Reason. 29, 559–593 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sanders, K. E. & Beeman, M. Sleep and incubation: using problem reactivation during sleep to study forgetting fixation and unconscious processing during sleep incubation. J. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 738–756 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Cai, D. J., Mednick, S. A., Harrison, E. M., Kanady, J. C. & Mednick, S. C. REM, not incubation, improves creativity by priming associative networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10130–10134 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Stickgold, R. & Walker, M. P. Sleep-dependent memory triage: evolving generalization through selective processing. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 139–145 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Segal, E. Incubation in insight problem solving. Creativ. Res. J. 16, 141–148 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. George, T. & Wiley, J. Fixation, flexibility, and forgetting during alternate uses tasks. Psychol. Aesth. Creativ. Arts 13, 305–313 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Lu, J. G., Akinola, M. & Mason, M. F. “Switching on” creativity: task switching can increase creativity by reducing cognitive fixation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 139, 63–75 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Smith, S. M., Gerkens, D. R. & Angello, G. Alternating incubation effects in the generation of category exemplars. J. Creativ. Behav. 51, 95–106 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Ansburg, P. I. & Hill, K. Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Pers. Individ. Differ. 34, 1141–1152 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Kim, S., Hasher, L. & Zacks, R. T. Aging and a benefit of distractibility. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 301–305 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Reverberi, C., Toraldo, A., D’Agostini, S. & Skrap, M. Better without (lateral) frontal cortex? Insight problems solved by frontal patients. Brain 128, 2882–2890 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Wiley, J. & Jarosz, A. How working memory capacity affects problem solving. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 56, 185–227 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Zmigrod, S., Zmigrod, L. & Hommel, B. The relevance of the irrelevant: attentional distractor-response binding predicts performance in the remote associates task. Psychol. Aesth. Creativ. Arts 13, 15–23 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Ninomiya, Y. et al. Effect of cognitive load and working memory capacity on the efficiency of discovering better alternatives: a survival analysis. Mem. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01448-w (2023).

  105. Tan, T., Zou, H., Chen, C. & Luo, J. Mind wandering and the incubation effect in insight problem solving. Creativ. Res. J. 27, 375–382 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Yang, T. & Wu, G. Spontaneous or deliberate: the dual influence of mind wandering on creative incubation. J. Creativ. Behav. 56, 584–600 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Zedelius, C. M. & Schooler, J. W. Mind wandering “Ahas” versus mindful reasoning: alternative routes to creative solutions. Front. Psychol. 6, 834 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Benedek, M., Panzierer, L., Jauk, E. & Neubauer, A. C. Creativity on tap? Effects of alcohol intoxication on creative cognition. Consc. Cogn. 56, 128–134 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Jarosz, A. F., Colflesh, G. J. & Wiley, J. Uncorking the muse: alcohol intoxication facilitates creative problem solving. Consc. Cogn. 21, 487–493 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Wieth, M. B. & Zacks, R. T. Time of day effects on problem solving: when the non-optimal is optimal. Think. Reason. 17, 387–401 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Bolte, A., Goschke, T. & Kuhl, J. Emotion and intuition: effects of positive and negative mood on implicit judgments of semantic coherence. Psychol. Sci. 14, 416–421 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B. & Anderson, A. K. Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 383–388 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Aiello, D. A., Jarosz, A. F., Cushen, P. J. & Wiley, J. Firing the executive: when an analytic approach to problem solving helps and hurts. J. Probl. Solving https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1128 (2012).

  114. Ellis, D. M., Robison, M. K. & Brewer, G. A. The cognitive underpinnings of multiply-constrained problem solving. J. Intell. 9, 7 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Chein, J. M., Weisberg, R. W., Streeter, N. L. & Kwok, S. Working memory and insight in the nine-dot problem. Mem. Cogn. 38, 883–892 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Kershaw, T. C. & Ohlsson, S. Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: the case of the nine-dot problem. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 30, 3–13 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Lung, C. T. & Dominowski, R. L. Effects of strategy instructions and practice on nine-dot problem solving. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 11, 804–811 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Öllinger, M., Jones, G., Faber, A. H. & Knoblich, G. Cognitive mechanisms of insight: the role of heuristics and representational change in solving the eight-coin problem. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 39, 931–939 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Thomas, L. E. & Lleras, A. Swinging into thought: directed movement guides insight in problem solving. Psychon Bull. Rev. 16, 719–723 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Hattori, M., Sloman, S. A. & Orita, R. Effects of subliminal hints on insight problem solving. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20, 790–797 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Moss, J., Kotovsky, K. & Cagan, J. The influence of open goals on the acquisition of problem-relevant information. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33, 876–891 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Moss, J., Kotovsky, K. & Cagan, J. The effect of incidental hints when problems are suspended before, during, or after an impasse. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37, 140–148 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Pétervári, J. & Danek, A. H. Problem solving of magic tricks: guiding to and through an impasse with solution cues. Think. Reason. 26, 502–533 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A. L., & Yaniv, I. in The Nature of Insight (Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E.) 65–124 (MIT Press, 1995).

  125. Gick, M. L. & McGarry, S. J. Learning from mistakes: inducing analogous solution failures to a source problem produces later successes in analogical transfer. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 18, 623–639 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Ash, I. K., Jee, B. D. & Wiley, J. Investigating insight as sudden learning. J. Probl. Solving https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1123 (2012).

  127. Ansburg, P. I. & Dominowski, R. I. Promoting insightful problem solving. J. Creat. Behav. 34, 30–60 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Bianchi, I., Branchini, E., Burro, R., Capitani, E. & Savardi, U. Overtly prompting people to “think in opposites” supports insight problem solving. Think. Reason. 26, 31–67 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Chrysikou, E. G. When shoes become hammers: goal-derived categorization training enhances problem-solving performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 32, 935–942 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Blech, C., Gaschler, R. & Bilalić, M. Why do people fail to see simple solutions? Using think-aloud protocols to uncover the mechanism behind the Einstellung (mental set) effect. Think. Reason. 26, 552–580 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Fleck, J. I. & Weisberg, R. W. The use of verbal protocols as data: an analysis of insight in the candle problem. Mem. Cogn. 32, 990–1006 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Fleck, J. I. & Weisberg, R. W. Insight versus analysis: evidence for diverse methods in problem solving. J. Cogn. Psychol. 25, 436–463 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Tidikis, V. & Ash, I. K. Working in dyads and alone: examining process variables in solving insight problems. Creativ. Res. J. 25, 189–198 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Gupta, N., Jang, Y., Mednick, S. C. & Huber, D. E. The road not taken: creative solutions require avoidance of high-frequency responses. Psychol. Sci. 23, 288–294 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Bilalić, M., Graf, M., Vaci, N. & Danek, A. H. The temporal dynamics of insight problem solving—restructuring might not always be sudden. Think. Reason. 27, 1–37 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S. & Raney, G. E. An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 29, 1000–1009 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Nathan, M. J., Schenck, K. E., Vinsonhaler, R., Michaelis, J. E., Swart, M. I. & Walkington, C. Embodied geometric reasoning: dynamic gestures during intuition, insight, and proof. J. Educ. Psychol. 113, 929–948 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Ross, W., Ruffatto Rech, R. & Vallée-Tourangeau, G. Insight as discovery. J. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 718–737 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Loesche, F., Goslin, J. & Bugmann, G. Paving the way to Eureka—introducing “Dira” as an experimental paradigm to observe the process of creative problem solving. Front. Psychol. 9, 1773 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. Ash, I. K. & Wiley, J. Hindsight bias in insight and mathematical problem solving: evidence of different reconstruction mechanisms for metacognitive versus situational judgments. Mem. Cogn. 36, 822–837 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Danek, A. H. & Wiley, J. What causes the insight memory advantage? Cognition 205, 104411 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Danek, A. H., Williams, J. & Wiley, J. Closing the gap: connecting sudden representational change to the subjective Aha! experience in insightful problem solving. Psychol. Res. 84, 111–119 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Bowden, E. M. & Grunewald, K. in Insight: On the Origins of New Ideas F. (ed. Vallée-Tourangeau, F.) 28–50 (Routledge, 2018).

  144. Gick, M. L., & Lockhart, R. S. in The Nature of Insight (Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E.) 197–228 (MIT Press, 1995).

  145. Bilalić, M., Graf, M., Vaci, N., & Danek, A. H. When the solution is on the doorstep: better solving performance, but diminished Aha! experience for chess experts on the mutilated checkerboard problem. Cogn. Sci. 43, e12771 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Laukkonen, R. E., Ingledew, D. J., Grimmer, H. J., Schooler, J. W. & Tangen, J. M. Getting a grip on insight: real-time and embodied Aha experiences predict correct solutions. Cogn. Emot. 35, 918–935 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Ross, W. & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. Insight with stumpers: normative solution data for 25 stumpers and a fresh perspective on the accuracy effect. Think. Skills Creat. 46, 101114 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Köhler, W. The Task of Gestalt Psychology (Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).

  149. Ovington, L. A., Saliba, A. J., Moran, C. C., Goldring, J. & MacDonald, J. B. Do people really have insights in the shower? The when, where and who of the Aha! moment. J. Creativ. Behav. 52, 21–34 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Gable, S. L., Hopper, E. A. & Schooler, J. W. When the muses strike: creative ideas of physicists and writers routinely occur during mind wandering. Psychol. Sci. 30, 396–404 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Jung-Beeman, M. et al. Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biol. 2, 500–510 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Danek, A. H. & Wiley, J. What about false insights? Deconstructing the Aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately. Front. Psychol. 7, 2077 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. It’s a kind of magic — what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving. Front. Psychol. 5, 1408 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Thagard, P. & Stewart, T. C. The Aha! experience: creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cogn. Sci. 35, 1–33 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Gruber, H. E. in The Nature of Insight (Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E.) 397–431 (MIT Press, 1995).

  156. Skaar, Ø. O. & Reber, R. Motivation through insight: the phenomenological correlates of insight and spatial ability tasks. J. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 631–643 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Spiridonov, V., Loginov, N. & Ardislamov, V. Dissociation between the subjective experience of insight and performance in the CRA paradigm. J. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 685–699 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Stuyck, H., Aben, B., Cleeremans, A. & Van den Bussche, E. The Aha! moment: is insight a different form of problem solving? Consc. Cogn. 90, 103055 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Webb, M. E., Cropper, S. J. & Little, D. R. Unusual uses and experiences are good for feeling insightful, but not for problem solving: contributions of schizotypy, divergent thinking, and fluid reasoning, to insight moments. J. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 770–792 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Kizilirmak, J. M., Serger, V., Kehl, J., Öllinger, M., Folta-Schoofs, K. & Richardson-Klavehn, A. Feelings-of-warmth increase more abruptly for verbal riddles solved with in contrast to without Aha! experience. Front. Psychol. 9, 1404 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  161. Becker, M., Kühn, S. & Sommer, T. Verbal insight revisited—dissociable neurocognitive processes underlying solutions accompanied by an Aha! experience with and without prior restructuring. J. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 659–684 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Topolinski, S. & Reber, R. Gaining insight into the “Aha” experience. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19, 402–405 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Salvi, C., Simoncini, C., Grafman, J. & Beeman, M. Oculometric signature of switch into awareness? Pupil size predicts sudden insight whereas microsaccades predict problem-solving via analysis. NeuroImage 217, 116933 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Danek, A. H. & Salvi, C. Moment of truth: why Aha! experiences are correct. J. Creativ. Behav. 54, 484–486 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Dietrich, A. & Haider, H. Human creativity, evolutionary algorithms, and predictive representations: the mechanics of thought trials. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 22, 897–915 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Kounios, J., Bowden, E. M. & Beeman, M. Insight solutions are correct more often than analytic solutions. Think. Reason. 22, 1–18 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Webb, M. E., Laukkonen, R. E., Cropper, S. J. & Little, D. R. Commentary: moment of (perceived) truth: exploring accuracy of Aha! experiences. J. Creativ. Behav. 55, 289–293 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Shen, W., Tong, Y., Yuan, Y., Zhan, H., Liu, C., Luo, J. & Cai, H. Feeling the insight: uncovering somatic markers of the “Aha” experience. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 43, 13–21 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Stuyck, H., Cleeremans, A. & Van den Bussche, E. Aha! under pressure: the Aha! experience is not constrained by cognitive load. Cognition 219, 104946 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Strickland, T., Wiley, J. & Ohlsson, S. Hints and the Aha-accuracy effect in insight problem solving. Proc. Annu. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc. 44, 3209–3215 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  171. Kizilirmak, J. M., Gallisch, N., Schott, B. H. & Folta-Schoofs, K. Insight is not always the same: differences between true, false, and induced insights in the matchstick arithmetic task. J. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 700–717 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Webb, M. E., Cropper, S. J. & Little, D. R. “Aha!” is stronger when preceded by a “huh?”: presentation of a solution affects ratings of Aha experience conditional on accuracy. Think. Reason. 25, 324–364 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Kizilirmak, J. M., Galvao Gomes da Silva, J., Imamoglu, F. & Richardson-Klavehn, A. Generation and the subjective feeling of “Aha!” are independently related to learning from insight. Psychol. Res. 80, 1059–1074 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Kounios, J., Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., Bowden, E. M. & Jung-Beeman, M. The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity. Neuropsychologia 46, 281–291 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Sadler-Smith, E. Wallas’ four-stage model of the creative process: more than meets the eye? Creativ. Res. J. 27, 342–352 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Wallas, G. The Art of Thought (Harcourt and Brace, 1926).

  177. Chronicle, E. P., MacGregor, J. N. & Ormerod, T. C. What makes an insight problem? The roles of heuristics, goal conception, and solution recoding in knowledge-lean problems. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 30, 14–27 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Grimmer, H., Laukkonen, R., Tangen, J. & von Hippel, W. Eliciting false insights with semantic priming. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 29, 954–970 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  179. Laukkonen, R. E., Kaveladze, B. T., Tangen, J. M. & Schooler, J. W. The dark side of Eureka: artificially induced Aha moments make facts feel true. Cognition 196, 104122 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Laukkonen, R. E., Kaveladze, B. T., Protzko, J., Tangen, J. M., von Hippel, W. & Schooler, J. W. Irrelevant insights make worldviews ring true. Sci. Rep. 12, 2075 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Bloom, P. A. The tip-of-the-tongue state and curiosity. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2, 31 (2017).  

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Bianchi, I., Branchini, E., Canestrari, C. & Burro, R. On pleasures of the mind related to humour and insight problem solving: an investigation of people’s awareness of what they like and why. J. Cogn. Psychol. 34, 778–795 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Kozbelt, A. & Nishioka, K. Humor comprehension, humor production, and insight: an exploratory study. Int. J. Humor Res. 23, 375–401 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Chesebrough, C., Chrysikou, E. G., Holyoak, K. J., Zhang, F. & Kounios, J. Conceptual change induced by analogical reasoning sparks aha moments. Creativ. Res. J. 35, 1–23 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  185. George T., & Wiley, J. in Insight: On the Origin of New Ideas (ed. Vallée-Tourangeau, F.) 143–168 (Routledge, 2018).

  186. Lv, K. The involvement of working memory and inhibition functions in the different phases of insight problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 43, 709–722 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Weisberg, R. W. Toward an integrated theory of insight in problem solving. Think. Reason. 21, 5–39 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Slamecka, N. J. & Graf, P. The generation effect: delineation of a phenomenon. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 4, 592–604 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Buyer, L. S. & Dominowski, R. L. Retention of solutions: it is better to give than to receive. Am. J. Psychol. 102, 353–363 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Kizilirmak, J. M., Wiegmann, B. & Richardson-Klavehn, A. Problem solving as an encoding task: a special case of the generation effect. J. Probl. Solving 9, 59–76 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  191. Patalano, A. L. & Seifert, C. M. Memory for impasses during problem solving. Mem. Cogn. 22, 234–242 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. Dominowski, R. L. & Buyer, L. S. Retention of problem solutions: the re-solution effect. Am. J. Psychol. 113, 249–274 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Schwartz, D. & Martin, T. Inventing to prepare for future learning: the hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cogn. Instr. 22, 129–184 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Jarosz, A. F., Goldenberg, O. & Wiley, J. Learning by invention: small group discussion activities that support learning in statistics. Discourse Process. 54, 285–302 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Sinha, T. & Kapur, M. When problem solving followed by instruction works: evidence for productive failure. Rev. Educ. Res. 91, 761–798 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müller, A., Grothe, B. & Öllinger, M. Aha! experiences leave a mark: facilitated recall of insight solutions. Psychol. Res. 77, 659–669 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Liljedahl, P. G. Mathematical discovery and affect: the effect of Aha! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 36, 219–234 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L. & Eich, T. S. Epistemic curiosity and the region of proximal learning. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 35, 40–47 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  199. Van de Cruys, S., Damiano, C., Boddez, Y., Król, M., Goetschalckx, L. & Wagemans, J. Visual affects: linking curiosity, Aha-Erlebnis, and memory through information gain. Cognition 212, 104698 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Kizilirmak, J. M., Thuerich, H., Folta-Schoofs, K., Schott, B. H. & Richardson-Klavehn, A. Neural correlates of learning from induced insight: a case for reward-based episodic encoding. Front. Psychol. 7, 1693 (2016). (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  201. Oh, Y., Chesebrough, C., Erickson, B., Zhang, F. & Kounios, J. An insight-related neural reward signal. NeuroImage 214, 116757 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Salvi, C., Leiker, E. K., Baricca, B., Molinari, M. A., Eleopra, R., Nichelli, P. F., Grafman, J. & Dunsmoor, J. E. The effect of dopaminergic replacement therapy on creative thinking and insight problem-solving in Parkinson’s disease patients. Front. Psychol. 12, 646448 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  203. Tik, M., Sladky, R., Luft, C. D. B., Willinger, D., Hoffmann, A., Banissy, M. J. & Windischberger, C. Ultra‐high‐field fMRI insights on insight: neural correlates of the Aha!‐moment. Hum. Brain Mapp. 39, 3241–3252 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank I. K. Ash, P. J. Cushen, T. George, A. F. Jarosz, T. S. Miller and S. Ohlsson for discussion on these topics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jennifer Wiley

  2. Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Amory H. Danek

Authors
  1. Jennifer Wiley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amory H. Danek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Wiley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Rolf Reber and the other anonymous, reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wiley, J., Danek, A.H. Restructuring processes and Aha! experiences in insight problem solving. Nat Rev Psychol 3, 42–55 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00257-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00257-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing