Does Thinking in Opposites in Order to Think Differently Improve Creativity?

In this paper, we focus on the link between thinking in opposites and creativity. Thinking in opposites requires an intuitive, productive strategy, which may enhance creativity. Given the importance of creativity for the well-being of individuals and society, finding new ways to enhance it represents a valuable goal in both professional and personal contexts. We discuss the body of evidence that exists concerning the importance of the first representation of the structure of a problem to be solved, which determines the baseline representation and sets limits on the area within which a problem solver will explore. We then review a variety of interventions described in the literature on creativity and insight problem solving that were designed to overcome fixedness and encourage people to move away from stereotypical solutions. Special attention is paid to the research carried out in the context of problem solving, which provides evidence that prompting people to "think in opposites" is beneficial. We suggest that an extended investigation of the effects of this strategy in various types of tasks related to creativity is an interesting line of research to follow. We discuss the rationale supporting this claim and identify specific questions, both theoretical and methodological, for future research to address

Pleasures of the Mind: What Makes Jokes and Insight Problems Enjoyable

In this paper, a parallel analysis of the enjoyment derived from humor and insight problem solving is presented with reference to a \u201cgeneral\u201d Theory of the Pleasures of the Mind (TPM) (Kubovy, 1999) rather than to \u201clocal\u201d theories regarding what makes humor and insight problem solving enjoyable. The similarity of these two cognitive activities has already been discussed in previous literature in terms of the cognitive mechanisms which underpin getting a joke or having an insight experience in a problem solving task. The paper explores whether we can learn something new about the similarities and differences between humor and problem solving by means of an investigation of what makes them pleasurable. In the first part of the paper, the framework for this joint analysis is set. Two descriptive studies are then presented in which the participants were asked to report on their experiences relating to solving visuo-spatial insight problems (Study 1) or understanding cartoons (Study 2) in terms of whether they were enjoyable or otherwise. In both studies, the responses were analyzed with reference to a set of categories inspired by the TPM. The results of Study 1 demonstrate that finding the solution to a problem is associated with a positive evaluation, and the most frequent explanations for this were reported as being Curiosity, Virtuosity and Violation of expectations. The results of Study 2 suggest that understanding a joke (Joy of verification) and being surprised by it (Feeling of surprise) were two essential conditions: when they were not present, the cartoons were perceived as not enjoyable. However, this was not enough to explain the motivations for the choice of the most enjoyable cartoons. Recognizing a Violation of expectations and experiencing a diminishment in the cleverness or awareness initially attributed to the characters in the cartoon were the aspects which were most frequently indicated by the participants to explain why they enjoyed the joke. These findings are evaluated in the final discussion, together with their limitations and potential future developments

Can Contraries Prompt Intuition in Insight Problem Solving?

This paper aims to test whether the use of contraries can facilitate spatial problem solving. Specifically, we examined whether a training session which included explicit guidance on thinking in contraries would improve problem solving abilities. In our study, the participants in the experimental condition were exposed to a brief training session before being presented with seven visuo-spatial problems to solve. During training it was suggested that it would help them to find the solution to the problems if they systematically transformed the spatial features of each problem into their contraries. Their performance was compared to that of a control group (who had no training). Two participation conditions were considered: small groups and individuals. Higher success rates were found in the groups exposed to training as compared to the individuals (in both the training and no training conditions), even though the time required to find a solution was longer. In general, participants made more attempts (i.e. drawings) when participating in groups than individually. The number of drawings done while the participants were trying to solve the problems did not increase after training. In order to explore if the quality (if not the number) of drawings was modified, we sampled one problem out of the seven we had used in the experiment (the \u201cpigs in a pen\u201d problem) and examined the drawings in detail. Differences between the training and no training conditions emerged in terms of properties focused on and transformed in the drawings. Based on these results, in the final discussion possible explanations are suggested as to why training had positive effects specifically in the group condition

Opposites in Reasoning Processes: Do We Use Them More Than We Think, but Less Than We Could?

Our aim in this paper is to contribute toward acknowledging the general role of opposites as an organizing principle in the human mind. We support this claim in relation to human reasoning by collecting evidence from various studies which shows that “thinking in opposites” is not only involved in formal logical thinking, but can also be applied in both deductive and inductive reasoning, as well as in problem solving. We also describe the results of a series of studies which, although they have been developed within a number of different theoretical frameworks based on various methodologies, all demonstrate that giving hints or training reasoners to think in terms of opposites improves their performance in tasks in which spontaneous thinking may lead to classic biases and impasses. Since we all possess an intuitive idea of what opposites are, prompting people to “think in opposites” is something which is undoubtedly within everyone’s reach and in the final section, we discuss the potential of this strategy and suggest possible future research directions of systematic testing the benefits that might arise from the use of this technique in contexts beyond those tested thus far. Ascertaining the conditions in which reasoners might benefit will also help in terms of clarifying the underlying mechanisms from the point of view, for instance, of analytical, conscious processing vs. automatic, unconscious processing

THINKING IN OPPOSITES IN WASON

Thinking in opposites improves hypothesis testing performance in Wason’s rule discovery tas

Productive thinking: the role of perception and perceiving opposition.

Contemporary studies dealing with problem solving as a process of reasoning have focused on many cognitive aspects of this process but have disregarded the role of perceptual- figural aspects. Conversely, the importance of perceptual processes in problem solving has come to the foreground in studies on learning geometry (which have shown the importance of manipulating figural features in the solution process) and studies on insight in problem solving (which have demonstrated the importance of restructuring a problem in order to solve it). This article aims to stimulate a reconsideration of the role of perception in problem solving by suggesting 1) that the degree of freedom established by the perceptual / representational structure of a problem guarantees a natural mechanism of epistemic vigilance in the cognitive reorganization process activated when a solution is sought and 2) that analyzing the perceptual structure of a problem by finding “the contrary” of its original properties helps people to restructure the problem and find a solution. The results of two studies are discussed in support of this second hypothesis

Can contraries facilitate insight solutions in problem solving?

This presentation discusses recent evidence supporting the hypothesis that contrast/contrariety/opposition facilitates visuo-spatial problem solving processes by prompting problem solvers to focus, at different moments, on one or more aspects of a problem and to consider whether the state of things is as they mentally visualize it or if the solution might require transforming this state into its opposite. In the first part of the presentation we briefly review studies that have discussed or empirically tested the role of counterfactual reasoning in cognitive abilities (Juhos et al., 2015; Murray & Byrne, 2013), such as inductive and deductive reasoning (Evans 2002, 2007), hypothesis testing (Gale & Ball, 2009, 2012) and creative and divergent thinking as applied to problem-solving (Alexander, 2012; Rothenberg, 1996). In the second part of the presentation, we focus on the results of two studies aimed at testing whether providing contraries as an implicit hint (Branchini et al., 2015) or as an explicit training method (Branchini et al., 2016) would improve problem solving abilities. In both studies participants were required to analyze the spatial features of problems and verbally list them and their corresponding opposites before embarking on the search for the solution. Performance, in terms of success rates, the time needed to find the solution and behavior during the search phase, was improved in both studies. These findings are discussed with reference to the fact that a key difficulty with insight problems is that people usually encounter an “impasse” phase (i.e., a state of mind in which one does not know what to do next) resulting from the initial representation of the problem, which “constrains” the options available and thus limits the area within which the search for a solution occurs. These impasses can be overcome by a representational change (Knoblich et al., 2001; Öllinger et al., 2008) and thinking in opposites can stimulate this. The role of visuo-spatial processes versus the linguistic elicitation of opposites required by the tasks is also discussed

Contraries as an effective strategy in geometrical problem solving

A focused review of the literature on reasoning suggests that mechanisms based upon contraries are of fundamental importance in various abilities. At the same time, the importance of contraries in the human perceptual experience of space has been recently demonstrated in experimental studies. Solving geometry problems represents an interesting case as both reasoning abilities and the manipulation of perceptual\u2013figural aspects are involved. In this study we focus on perceptual changes in geometrical problem solving processes in order to understand whether a mental manipulation in terms of opposites might help. Four conditions were studied, two of which concerned the search for contraries as an implicit or explicit strategy. Results demonstrated that contraries, when used explicitly in solution processes, constitute an effective heuristic: The number of correct solutions increased, less time was needed to find a solution and participants were oriented towards the use of perception-based solutions\u2014not only were perceptual solutions more frequent, but also, more specifically, the number of correct perceptual solutions increased. These last results concerning perception-based solutions were found both when participants were advised about the usefulness of the strategy and when they were not advised. Differences concerning which aspects of a problem were focused on during the solution process also emerged

L’idea spontanea di “processo contrario”

Analisi di un processo contrario spontaneamente descritt

On pleasures of the mind related to humour and insight problem solving: an investigation of people’s awareness of what they like and why

4noreservedThis study examines the cognitive and affective commonalities and differences between humour and insight problems, focusing on the reasons given by the participants to explain their preferences. For both cartoons (study 1) and insight problems (study 2), the participants gave more reasons for liking than disliking something and the motivations for liking versus disliking did not always correspond. Many overlaps emerged between cartoons and insight puzzles in the categories relating to Curiosity, Violation of expectation, Virtuosity, Happiness related to superficial aspects and to content type confirming an overall similarity between these two “pleasures of the mind”. They are nevertheless distinct in terms of certain aspects. For instance, the most common reason for liking a cartoon was that it elicited a sense of general happiness and Lack of surprise more often motivated dislike for a cartoon, whereas Lack of joy of verification was the main reason for disliking an insight puzzle.mixedIvana Bianchi, Erika Branchini, Carla Canestrari, Roberto BurroBianchi, Ivana; Branchini, Erika; Canestrari, Carla; Burro, Robert