↓ Skip to main content

Intuitive Feelings of Warmth and Confidence in Insight and Noninsight Problem Solving of Magic Tricks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intuitive Feelings of Warmth and Confidence in Insight and Noninsight Problem Solving of Magic Tricks
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01314
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikael R. Hedne, Elisabeth Norman, Janet Metcalfe

Abstract

The focus of the current study is on intuitive feelings of insight during problem solving and the extent to which such feelings are predictive of successful problem solving. We report the results from an experiment (N = 51) that applied a procedure where the to-be-solved problems were 32 short (15 s) video recordings of magic tricks. The procedure included metacognitive ratings similar to the "warmth ratings" previously used by Metcalfe and colleagues, as well as confidence ratings. At regular intervals during problem solving, participants indicated the perceived closeness to the correct solution. Participants also indicated directly whether each problem was solved by insight or not. Problems that people claimed were solved by insight were characterized by higher accuracy and higher confidence than noninsight solutions. There was no difference between the two types of solution in warmth ratings, however. Confidence ratings were more strongly associated with solution accuracy for noninsight than insight trials. Moreover, for insight trials the participants were more likely to repeat their incorrect solutions on a subsequent recognition test. The results have implications for understanding people's metacognitive awareness of the cognitive processes involved in problem solving. They also have general implications for our understanding of how intuition and insight are related.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 22%
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 44%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Philosophy 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,891,352
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,740
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,920
of 339,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#133
of 402 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 402 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.