Schizophrenia patients perform as well as healthy controls on creative problem solving when fluid intelligence is accounted for.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined creative problem solving in schizophrenia. We aimed to verify three hypotheses: (H1) schizophrenia patients differ from healthy controls in the accuracy of creative problem solving; (H2) schizophrenia patients are less effective at evaluating and rejecting incorrect associations and (H3) have a more idiosyncratic way of searching for semantic associations compared to controls. METHODS: Six Remote Associates Test (RAT) items and three insight problems were applied to schizophrenia patients and healthy controls. We compared groups on the overall accuracy in the tasks to verify H1 and developed a novel method of comparing the patterns of errors in the RAT to verify H2 and H3. We controlled for fluid intelligence to eliminate this significant source of variation, as typically creativity and intelligence are significantly related. RESULTS: Bayesian factor analysis did not support the group differences in either insight problems and RAT accuracy or the patterns of RAT errors. CONCLUSIONS: The patients performed as well as the controls on both tasks. Analysis of RAT errors suggested that the process of searching for remote associations is comparable in both groups. It is highly improbable that individuals with schizophrenia benefit from their diagnosis during creative problem solving.

Various sources of distraction during analogical reasoning.

Reasoning by analogy requires mapping relational correspondence between two situations to transfer information from the more familiar (source) to the less familiar situation (target). However, the presence of distractors may lead to invalid conclusions based on semantic or perceptual similarities instead of on relational correspondence. To understand the role of distraction in analogy making, we examined semantically rich four-term analogies (A:B::C:?) and scene analogies, as well as semantically lean geometric analogies and the matrix task tapping general reasoning. We examined (a) what types of lures were most distracting, (b) how the two semantically rich analogy tasks were related, and (c) how much variance in the scores could be attributed to general reasoning ability. We observed that (a) in four-term analogies the distractors semantically related to C impacted performance most strongly, as compared to the perceptual, categorical, and relational distractors, but the two latter distractor types also mattered; (b) distraction sources in four-term and scene analogies were virtually unrelated; and (c) general reasoning explained the largest part of variance in resistance to distraction. The results suggest that various sources of distraction operate at different stages of analogical reasoning and differently affect specific analogy paradigms.

How physical interaction with insight problems affects solution rates, hint use, and cognitive load.

So-called insight problems are widely studied because they tap into the creative thinking that is crucial for solving real problems. However, insight problems are typically presented in static formats (on paper, computer) that allow no physical interaction with the problem elements, whereas such an interaction might in fact reduce the load on limited cognitive resources, such as working memory (WM) capacity, thereby facilitating solutions. To test this proposition, 124 young adults were allowed to interact physically with nine established insight problems, while another 124 people attempted to solve these problems using paper and pencil. Additionally, hints were provided for three problems that typically no-one solves. No general facilitating effect of physical interaction was found, with only one problem clearly benefitting from it. Furthermore, making use of hints was actually hindered by physical interaction. No difference in perceived task load and correlation with WM capacity was observed between the formats, and subjective ratings of insight were virtually unaffected by presentation format. Overall, physical interaction minimally affected insight problem-solving, which appears to rely strongly on internalized cognitive processing involving WM.

Susceptibility to distraction during analogical reasoning in schizophrenia.

Proportional analogies between four objects (e.g., a squirrel is to tree as a golden fish is to? aquarium) were examined in 30 schizophrenia patients and 30 healthy controls. Half of the problems included distracting response options: remote semantic associates (fishing rod) and perceptually similar salient distractors (shark). Although both patients and controls performed fairly accurately on the no-distraction analogies, patients' performance in the presence of distractors was distorted, suggesting deficits in attention and cognitive control affecting complex cognition. Finally, although education, fluid intelligence, and interference resolution strongly predicted distractibility in the control group, in the schizophrenia group susceptibility to distraction was unrelated to these markers of general cognitive ability, implying an idiosyncratic nature of reasoning distortions in schizophrenia.