↓ Skip to main content

“The Penny Drops”: Investigating Insight Through the Medium of Cryptic Crosswords

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
35 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
“The Penny Drops”: Investigating Insight Through the Medium of Cryptic Crosswords
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00904
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn J. Friedlander, Philip A. Fine

Abstract

A new protocol for eliciting insight ("Aha!"/Eureka) moments is proposed, involving the solving of British-style cryptic crosswords. The mechanics of cryptic crossword clues are briefly explained, and the process is set into the insight literature, with parallels being drawn between several different types of cryptic crossword clues and other insight-triggering problems such as magic, jokes, anagrams, rebus, and remote association puzzles (RAT), as well as "classic" thematic or spatial challenges. We have evidence from a previous survey of cryptic crossword solvers that the "Aha!" moment is the most important driver of continued participation in this hobby, suggesting that the positive emotional "payback" has an energizing effect on a participant's motivation to continue solving. Given the success with which a good quality cryptic crossword elicits "Aha!" moments, cryptics should prove highly valuable in exploring insight under lab conditions. We argue that the crossword paradigm overcomes many of the issues which beset other insight problems: for example, solution rates of cryptic crossword clues are high; new material can easily be commissioned, leading to a limitless pool of test items; and each puzzle contains clues resembling a wide variety of insight problem types, permitting a comparison of heterogeneous solving mechanisms within the same medium. Uniquely among insight problems, considerations of expertise also come into play, allowing us to explore how crossword solving experts handle the deliberate misdirection of the cryptic clue more effectively than non-expert, but equally experienced, peers. Many have debated whether there is such a thing as an "insight problem" per se: typically, problems can be solved with or without insight, depending on the context. We argue that the same is true for cryptic crosswords, and that the key to the successful triggering of insight may lie in both the difficulty of the challenge and the degree to which misdirection has been used. Future research is outlined which explores the specific mechanisms of clue difficulty. This opens the way to an exploration of potential links between solving constraints and the experiencing of the "Aha!" moment, which may shed light on the cognitive processes involved in insight solution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 15 54%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 16 August 2021.
All research outputs
#794,519
of 23,058,939 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,620
of 30,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,990
of 327,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#49
of 720 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,058,939 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 327,827 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 720 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.