Advertisement

The relation between state and trait risk taking and problem-solving

  • Carola SalviEmail author
  • Edward Bowden
Original Article

Abstract

People can solve problems in two main styles: through a methodical analysis, or by a sudden insight (also known as ‘Aha!’ or ‘Eureka!’ experience). Analytical solutions are achieved primarily with conscious deliberation in a trial-and-error fashion. ‘Aha!’ moments, instead, happen suddenly, often without conscious deliberation and are considered a critical facet of creative cognition. Previous research has indicated an association between creativity and risk taking (a personality trait); however, few studies have investigated how a short-term situational state of risk modulates these two different problem-solving styles. In this research, we looked at how both state and trait risks taking is related to different problem-solving styles. To measure risk as a personality trait, we administered the Balloon Analog Risk Task. To investigate risk as a state, we created a scenario, where people had to bet on their problem-solving performance at the beginning of each trial, and we compared the performance of this group with a control group that did not have to bet. The results show no association between risk as a trait and problem-solving style; however, the risk state scenario did produce a shift in dominant problem-solving style with participants in the risk scenario group solving more problems via analysis. We also found that two factors are related to problem-solving accuracy: the amount bet (i.e., when people place higher bets, they solve more problems), and success on the previous trial, especially if the solution was achieved via analysis. Furthermore, the data reveal that when under risk, females are better problem solvers than males.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the two reviewers and the Editor for their constructive criticisms on the earlier draft of this article, and for motivating further analysis that allowed us to find unpredicted results. This work was supported by NIH under Grant no. T32 NS047987 to CS.

Author contributions

All authors have contributed equally to the manuscript and the designing and performing of the research.

Supplementary material

426_2019_1152_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 16 KB)

References

  1. Aklin, W. M., Lejuez, C. W., Zvolensky, M. J., Kahler, C. W., & Gwadz, M. (2005). Evaluation of behavioral measures of risk taking propensity with inner-city adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 215–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.12.007.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: Theeffects of contracted-for reward. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(1), 14.Google Scholar
  4. Ansburg, P. I., & Dominowski, R. I. (2000). Promoting insightful problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(1), 30–60.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01201.x.Google Scholar
  5. Arkes, H. R., Herren, L. T., & Isen, A. M. (1988). The role of potential loss in the influence risk taking behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42(2), 181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(88)90011-8.Google Scholar
  6. Ashby, F. G., Isen, aM., & Turken, aU. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529–550.Google Scholar
  7. Bannier, C. E., & Neubert, M. (2016). Gender differences in financial risk taking: The role of financial literacy and risk tolerance. Economics Letters.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.05.033.Google Scholar
  8. Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect, and personality: Unconscious coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1213.Google Scholar
  9. Benedek, M. (2018). 10 Internally Directed Attention in Creative Cognition. The Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity, 180.Google Scholar
  10. Benedek, M., Schickel, R. J., Jauk, E., Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Alpha power increases in right parietal cortex reflects focused internal attention. Neuropsychologia, 56, 393–400.Google Scholar
  11. Benedek, M., Stoiser, R., Walcher, S., & Körner, C. (2017). Eye behavior associated with internally versus externally directed cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(June), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01092.Google Scholar
  12. Bishop, S., Duncan, J., Brett, M., & Lawrence, A. D. (2004). Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: Controlling attention to threat-related stimuli. Nature Neuroscience.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1173.Google Scholar
  13. Bolte, A., Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (2003). Emotion and intuition: Effects of positive and negative mood on implicit judgments of semantic coherence. Psychological Science, 14(5), 416–421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01456.Google Scholar
  14. Bowden, E., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9(6), 435–440.Google Scholar
  15. Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 35(4), 634–639.Google Scholar
  16. Charyton, C., Snelbecker, G. E., Rahman, M. A., & Elliott, J. O. (2013). College students’ creative attributes as a predictor of cognitive risk tolerance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 350–357.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032706.Google Scholar
  17. Cristofori, I., Salvi, C., Beeman, M., & Grafman, J. (2018). The effects of expected reward on creative problem solving. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(5), 925–931.Google Scholar
  18. Cummings, L. L., & Mize, G. W. (1968). Risk-taking and organizational creativity. Personnel Administration, 1(31), 38–47.Google Scholar
  19. Danek, A. H., & Salvi, C. (2018). Moment of truth: Why aha! Experiences are correct. Journal of Creative Behavior, 0, 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.380.Google Scholar
  20. Danek, A. H., & Wiley, J. (2017). What about false insights? Deconstructing the Aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2077.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02077.Google Scholar
  21. Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 27–45.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01265.x.Google Scholar
  22. Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and Problem Solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 273–278). MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343–353.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.343.Google Scholar
  24. Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047707.Google Scholar
  25. Eisenman, R. (1987). Creativity, birth order, and risk taking. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(2), 87–88.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330292.Google Scholar
  26. El-Murad, J., & West, D. C. (2003). Risk and creativity in advertising. Journal of Marketing Management, 19(5), 657–673.  https://doi.org/10.1362/026725703322189995.Google Scholar
  27. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Verbal reports on thinking. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Multilingual matters, No. 30. Introspection in second language research (pp. 24–53). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  28. Fecteau, S., Knoch, D., Fregni, F., Sultani, N., Boggio, P., & Pascual-leone, A. (2007). Diminishing risk taking behavior by modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex: A direct current stimulation study. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(46), 12500–12505.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3283-07.2007.Google Scholar
  29. Federmeier, K. D., Kirson, D. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2001). Effects of transient, mild mood states on semantic memory organization and use: An event-related potential investigation in humans. Neuroscience Letters.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(01)01843-2.Google Scholar
  30. Fein, G., & Chang, M. (2008). Smaller feedback ERN amplitudes during the BART are associated with a greater family history density of alcohol problems in treatment-naïve alcoholics. Drug and Alcohol Dependence.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.07.017.Google Scholar
  31. Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 111–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002.Google Scholar
  32. Friedman, R. S., & Foster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: implications for creativity and analytical problem solving ronald. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 263–275.Google Scholar
  33. Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Förster, J., & Werth, L. (2003). Attentional priming effects on creativity. Creativity Research Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651420.Google Scholar
  34. Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00406.Google Scholar
  35. Grunewald, K., & Bowden, E. M. (2018). Whose insight is it anyway?. In Insight (pp. 28–50). Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence (Vol. 5). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: self–others discrepancies in risk preference. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 126(1), 45.Google Scholar
  38. Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1999). Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(2), 165–179.Google Scholar
  39. Holmes, J. B., Waters, H. S., & Rajaram, S. (1998). The phenomenology of false memories: Episodic content and confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.1026.Google Scholar
  40. Hunt, M. K. (2005). Construct validity of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART): Associations with psychopathy and impulsivity. Assessment, 12(4), 416–428.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105278740.Google Scholar
  41. Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1206.Google Scholar
  42. Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1413.Google Scholar
  43. Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: It is just not worth the risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 710–717.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.55.5.710.Google Scholar
  44. Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on risk taking: When the chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31(2), 194–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90120-4.Google Scholar
  45. Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 52, 1122–1131.Google Scholar
  46. Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), 500–510.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097.Google Scholar
  47. Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 71–93.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115154.Google Scholar
  48. Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind: Neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17(10), 882–890.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01798.x.Google Scholar
  49. Laukkonen, R. E., & Tangen, J. M. (2018). How to detect insight moments in problem solving experiments. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 282.Google Scholar
  50. Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., & Brown, R. a. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 8(2), 75–84.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75.Google Scholar
  51. Lejuez, C. W., Simmons, B. L., Aklin, W. M., Daughters, S. B., & Dvir, S. (2004). Risk taking propensity and risky sexual behavior of individuals in residential substance use treatment. Addictive Behaviors.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.02.035.Google Scholar
  52. Lemaster, P., & Strough, J. N. (2014). Beyond mars and venus: Understanding gender differences in financial risk tolerance. Journal of Economic Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.11.001.Google Scholar
  53. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1992). Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99(1), 172–183.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.172.Google Scholar
  54. McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., & Scheinberg, S. (1992). Elitists, risk takers, and rugged individualists? An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 115–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90008-F.Google Scholar
  55. Mednick, S. A. (1968). Remote associates test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213–214.Google Scholar
  56. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Communications (Vol. 104). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Nygren, T. E. (1998). Reacting to Perceived High- and Low-Risk Win-Lose Opportunities in a Risky Decision- Making Task : Is It Framing or Affect or Bth? Motivation and Emotion, 22(1), 73–98.Google Scholar
  58. Nygren, T. E., Isen, A. M., Taylor, P. J., & Dulin, J. (1996). The influence of positive affect on the decision rule in risk situations: Focus on outcome (and especially avoidance of loss) rather than probability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 59–72.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0038.Google Scholar
  59. Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6%3C768::AID-JCLP2270510607%3E3.0.CO;2-1 Google Scholar
  60. Pessiglione, M., Schmidt, L., Draganski, B., Kalisch, R., Lau, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2007). How the brain translates money into force: A neuroimaging study of subliminal motivation. Science, 316(5826), 904–906.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140459.Google Scholar
  61. Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00026-3.Google Scholar
  62. Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., & Anderson, A. K. (2007). Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(1), 383–388.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605198104.Google Scholar
  63. Salvi, C., & Bowden, E. M. (2016). Looking for creativity: Where do we look when we look for new ideas? Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161.Google Scholar
  64. Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Bowden, E., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2016). Insight solutions are correct more often than those achieved by analysis. Thinking and Reasoning.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1141798.Google Scholar
  65. Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0.Google Scholar
  66. Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Bricolo, E., Perugini, M., & Beeman, M. (2016). Validation of Italian rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems. Behavior research methods, 48(2), 664–685.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0597-9.Google Scholar
  67. Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Pace, A., & Palmiero, M. (2018). Validation of the Italian remote associate test. Journal Of Creative Behavior, 0, 1–13  https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.345.Google Scholar
  68. Salvi, C., Cristofori, I., Grafman, J., & Beeman, M. (2016). The politics of insight. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1064–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1136338.Google Scholar
  69. Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 97–133). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Shen, W., Hommel, B., Yuan, Y., & Zhang, W. (2018). Risk taking and creativity: Convergent, but not divergent thinking is better in low-risk takers. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2).Google Scholar
  71. Simmons, A. L., & Ren, R. (2009). The influence of goal orientation and risk on creativity. Creativity Research Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903297980.Google Scholar
  72. Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). When attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering mind. Memory and Cognition, 36(6), 1144–1150.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1144.Google Scholar
  73. Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. (2015). The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness the science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 487–518.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331.Google Scholar
  74. Spielberger, C. D. (1987). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Anxiety.  https://doi.org/10.1037/t06496-000.Google Scholar
  75. Spielberger, R., Lushere, R., C.. G (1971). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Professional Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1037/t06496-000.Google Scholar
  76. Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 415–432.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21057.Google Scholar
  77. Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? American Psychologist.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.4.385.Google Scholar
  78. Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Choma, B., & Denham, S. L. (2018). The ‘right’ side of creativity: Creative personality and social risk taking predict political party affiliation. Creativity Research Journal, 00(00), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1540252.Google Scholar
  79. Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Hall, S. D., Runco, M., & Denham, S. L. (2017). The risky side of creativity: Domain specific risk taking in creative individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 145.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00145.Google Scholar
  80. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.Google Scholar
  81. Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., & Cropper, S. J. (2016). Insight is not in the problem: Investigating insight in problem solving across task types. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1424.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01424.Google Scholar
  82. Wegbreit, E., Suzuki, S., Grabowecky, M., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2012). Visual attention modulates insight versus analytic solving of verbal problems. The Journal of Problem Solving, 4(2), 94–115.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Shirley Ryan AbilityLabChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Wisconsin-ParksideKenoshaUSA

Personalised recommendations