↓ Skip to main content

How to Detect Insight Moments in Problem Solving Experiments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
How to Detect Insight Moments in Problem Solving Experiments
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruben E. Laukkonen, Jason M. Tangen

Abstract

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 diverge, 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 visceral measure of insight using a dynamometer as described in Creswell et al. (2016).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 18 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 44%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 05 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,307,041
of 25,641,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,724
of 34,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,712
of 349,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#77
of 579 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,641,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 349,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 579 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.