Роль антиципации и ожиданий в инсайтном решении
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v14i76.141Ключевые слова:
инсайт, антиципация, ожидания, цель, решение задач, предсказательное кодированиеАннотация
В ходе теоретического анализа роли антиципации и ожиданий в инсайтном решении задач было выяв-лено, чтопоиск инсайтного решения представляет собой направленный процесс, обусловленный как прошлым опытом, таки образом цели или критерием приближения к ней. Выделены два типа анти-ципации: антиципация от материала основана на ограничении возможных исходов благодаря исполне-нию автоматизированных процессов, антиципация от задачи основана на построении репрезентациизадачи, включающей в себя представление об ожидаемом результате. Оба вида определяют целена-правленность решениятворческих задач, но, по всей видимости, на разных этапах. Делается предпо-ложение, что сознательная доступность ожиданий в случае антиципации от задачи открывает возмож-ность сознательного анализа образа целевого состояния и критериев продвижения к цели.
Скачивания
Библиографические ссылки
Cyrillic letters are transliterated according to BSI standards. The titles are given in author’s translation.
Anderson J. Kognitivnaya psikhologiya. SPb.: Piter, 2002. 496 p. (in Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/416496a
Bruner J. Psikhologiya poznaniya. Za predelami neposredstvennoi informatsii. M.: Progress, 1977. 413 p. (in Russian)
Brushlinskii A.V. Myshlenie i prognozirovanie. M.: Mysl', 1979. 232 p. (in Russian)
Duncker K. Psikhologiya produktivnogo (tvorcheskogo) myshleniya // Psikhologiya myshleniya. M.: Progress, 1965. P. 86–234. (in Russian)
Korovkin S. Myslytel’nye schemy v insaytnom reshenii zadach. Doctoral dissertation. М., 2020, 331 p. (in Russian)
Matyushkin A.M. Problemnye situatsii v myshlenii i obuchenii. M.: Pedagogika, 1972. 168 p.
Naisser U. Poznanie i real'nost'. M.: Progress, 1981. 230 p. (in Russian)
Sergienko E.A. Antitsipatsiya v rannem ontogeneze cheloveka. M.: Nauka, 1992. 138 p. (in Russian)
Vladimirov I.Yu., Karpov A.V., Lazareva N.Yu. Rol' upravlyayushchego kontrolya i podchinennykh sistem rabochei pamyati v formirovanii ehffekta serii // Ehksperimental'naya psikhologiya, 2018. V. 11. No. 3. P. 36–50. (in Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2018110303
Ach N. Über die Willenstätigkeit und das Denken. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rubprecht, 1905.
Airenti G. Playing with expectations: A contextual view of humor development // Frontiers in Psychology, 2016. No. 7, Article 1392. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01392
Attardo S., Raskin V. Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model // Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 1991. V. 4. No. 3–4. P. 293–347. https://doi.org/10.1515/ humr.1991.4.3–4.293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1991.4.3-4.293
Baillargeon R. Young infants’ expectations about hidden objects: A reply to three challenges // Developmental Science, 1999. V. 2. No. 2. P. 115–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00061
Birch H.G., Rabinowitz H.S. The negative effect of previous experience on productive thinking // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1951. V. 41. No. 2. P. 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062635
Chetverikov A., Kristjánsson Á. On the joys of perceiving: affect as feedback for perceptual predictions // Acta Psychologica, 2016. V. 169. P. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.05.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.05.005
Clark A. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science // The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2013. V. 36. No. 3. P. 181–204. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1017/S0140525X12000477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477
Danek A.H., Wiley J. What about false insights? Deconstructing the Aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately // Frontiers in Psychology, 2017. V. 7. Article 2077. P. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077
Danek A.H., Öllinger M., Fraps T., Grothe B., Flanagin V.L. An fMRI investigation of expectation violation in magic tricks // Frontiers in Psychology, 2015. V. 6. Article 84. P. 1–11.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00084
Danek A.H., Wiley J., Öllinger M. Solving classical insight problems without Aha! experience: 9 Dot, 8 Coin, and matchstick arithmetic problems // The Journal of Problem Solving, 2016. V. 9. No. 1. P. 47–57. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1183
Dubois D.M. Review of incursive, hyperincursive and anticipatory systems – foundation of anticipation in electromagnetism // Computing Anticipatory Systems: CASYS'99 – Third International Conference, D.M. Dubois (Ed.), AIP Conference Proceedings 517, The American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, 2000. pp. 3–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1291243
Fedor A., Szathmáry E., Öllinger M. Problem solving stages in the five square problem // Frontiers in Psychology, 2015. V. 6. Article 1050. P. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01050
Fedor A., Zachar I., Szilágyi A., Öllinger M., de Vladar H.P., Szathmáry E. Cognitive architecture with evolutionary dynamics solves insight problem // Frontiers in Psychology, 2017. V. 8. Article 427. P. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00427
Friston K. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? // Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2010. V. 11 No. 2. P. 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
Gick M.L., Holyoak K.J. Schema induction and analogical transfer // Cognitive Psychology, 1983. V. 15. No. 1. P. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6
Hedne M.R., Norman E., Metcalfe J. Intuitive feelings of warmth and confidence in insight and noninsight problem solving of magic tricks // Frontiers in Psychology, 2016. V. 7. Article 1314. P. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01314
Huron D. Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006. 480 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6575.001.0001
Jones G. Testing two cognitive theories of insight // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2003. V. 29. No. 5. P. 1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/02787393.29.5.1017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.1017
Korovkin S., Savinova A., Padalka J., Zhelezova A. Beautiful mind: grouping of actions into mental schemes leads to a full insight Aha! experience // Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2020. P. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1847124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1847124
Kronfeldner M.E. Darwinian ‘blind’ hypothesis formation revisited // Synthese, 2010. V. 175, P. 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9498-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9498-8
Kunde W., Elsner K., Kiesel A. No anticipation–no action: the role of anticipation in action and perception // Cognitive Processing, 2007. V. 8, P. 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0162-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0162-2
Libet B. Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will involuntary action // Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1985. V. 8. No. 4. P. 529–566 https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00044903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044903
Luchins A.S., Luchins E.H. New experimental attempts at preventing mechanization in problem solving // Journal of General Psychology, 1950. V. 42. No. 2. P. 279–297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1950.9920160
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 // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2001. V. 27. No. 1. P. 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1037//02787393.27.1.176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.176
Metcalfe J. Premonitions of insight predict impending error // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1986. V. 12. No. 4. P. 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/02787393.12.4.623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.4.623
Metcalfe J., Wiebe D. Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving // Memory & Cognition, 1987. V. 15. No. 3. P. 238–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197722
Mitchell A., Romano G., Groisman B., Yona A., Dekel E., Kupiec M., Dahan O., Pilpel Y. Adaptive prediction of environmental changes by microorganisms // Nature, 2009. V. 460. P. 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08112
Mooneyham B.W., Schooler J.W. The costs and benefits of mind-wandering: a review // Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 2013. V. 67. No. 1. P. 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031569
Ohlsson S. Deep Learning. How the mind overrides experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 540 p.
Öllinger M., Jones G., Knoblich G. Investigating the effect of mental set on insight problem solving // Experimental Psychology, 2008. V. 55. No. 4. P. 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1027/16183169.55.4.270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.55.4.269
Öllinger M., Jones G., Knoblich G. Heuristics and representational change in two-move matchstick arithmetic tasks // Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2006. V. 2. No. 4. P. 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0059-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0059-3
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 // Psychological Research, 2014. V. 78. No. 2. P. 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0494-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0494-8
Ormerod T.C., MacGregor J.N., Chronicle E.P. Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2002. V. 28. No. 4. P. 791– 799. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.4.791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.791
Riegler A. The role of anticipation in cognition // Dubois D.M. (ed.) Computing Anticipatory Systems. Proceedings of the American Institute of Physics, vol. 573. American Institute of Physics, Melville, 2001. P. 534–541. http://pcp.vub.ac.be/riegler/papers/riegler01anticipation.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1388719
Rosen R. Anticipatory systems: Philosophical, mathematical and methodological foundations. Oxford: Pergamon, 1985.
Seifert C.M., Meyer D.E., Davidson N., Patalano A.L., Yaniv I. Demystification of cognitive insight: opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind perspective // R.J. Sternberg, J.E. Davidson (Eds.) The Nature of Insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. P. 65–124. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4879.003.0007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4879.003.0007
Selz O. Komplextheorie und Konstellationstheorie // Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 1920. V.83. P. 211234.
Simon H.A. Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving // Models of Discovery – and Other Topics in the Methods of Science. D. Reidel, 1977. P. 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9521-1_16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9521-1_16
Simonton D.K. Foresight in insight? A Darwinian answer // R.J. Sternberg, J.E. Davidson (Eds.) The Nature of Insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. P. 465–494.
Simonton D.K. Foresight, insight, oversight, and hindsight in scientific discovery: How sighted were Galileo’s telescopic sightings? // Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2012. V. 6. No. 3. P. 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027058
Smith S.M., Beda Z. Old problems in new contexts: The context-dependent fixation hypothesis // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2020. V. 149. No. 1. P. 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000615
Trapp S. Commentary: On the joys of perceiving: Affect as feedback for perceptual predictions // Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2017. V. 11. Article 556. P. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00556
Wiley J. Expertise as mental set: the effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving // Memory & Cognition, 1998. V. 26. No. 4. P. 716–730. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211392
Zamani M., Richard J.-F. Object encoding, goal similarity, and analogical transfer // Memory & Cognition, 2000. V. 28. No. 5. P. 873–886. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198422
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2021 Психологические исследования
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-NonCommercial» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование») 4.0 Всемирная.
