Working memory processes are important for analytic problem-solving; however, their role in multiply-constrained problem-solving is currently debated. This study explored individual differences in working memory and successful completion of analytic and multiply-constrained problem-solving by having participants solve algebra and compound remote associate (CRAT) problems of varying difficulty under low and high memory demand conditions. Working memory was predictive of both algebra and multiply-constrained problem-solving. Specifically, participants with high working memory solved more problems than those with low working. Memory load did not differentially affect performance for low and high working memory participants. However, for multiply-constrained problem-solving the effect of item difficulty was more detrimental for high-span participants than low-span participants. Together, these findings suggest that working memory processes are important for both types of problem-solving and that participants with low working memory capacity may need to offload internal memory demands onto the environment to efficiently solve problems.
AshI. K.WileyJ. (2006). The nature of restructuring in insight: An individual differences approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 66–73.
2.
AshcraftM. H.KirkE. P. (2001). The relationship among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 224–237.
BallL. J.MarshJ. E.LitchfieldD.CookR. L.BothN. (2015). When distraction helps: Evidence that concurrent articulation and irrelevant speech can facilitate insight problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 76–96.
5.
BallL.StevensA. (2009). Evidence for a verbally-based analytic component to insight problem solving. In TaatgenN.van RijnH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1060–1065). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
6.
BeilockS. L.DeCaroM. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 983–998.
7.
BowdenE. M.Jung-BeemanM. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 634–639.
8.
BowdenE. M.Jung-BeemanM.FleckJ.KouniosJ. (2005). New approaches to demystifying insight. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7), 322–328.
9.
BrewerG. A.UnsworthN. (2012). Individual differences in the effects of retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 407–415.
10.
CheinJ. M.WeisbergR. W. (2014). Working memory and insight in verbal problems: Analysis of compound remote associates. Memory Cognition, 42, 67–83.
11.
CheinJ. M.WeisbergR. W.StreeterN. L.KwokS. (2010). Working memory and insight in the nine-dot problem. Memory & Cognition, 38(7), 883–892.
12.
ChuderskiA. (2014). How well can storage capacity, executive control, and fluid reasoning explain insight problem solving. Intelligence, 46, 258–270.
13.
ConwayA. R. A.CowanN.BuntingM. F.TherriaultD. J.MinkoffS. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30(2), 163–183.
14.
CowanN. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.
15.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
16.
DanemanM.HannonB. (2001). Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 208–223.
17.
DeCaroM. S.StockumC. A.WiethM. B. (2016). When higher working memory capacity hinders insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 39–49.
18.
De DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A.BaasM.WolsinkI.RoskesM. (2012). Working memory benefits creative insight, musical improvisation, and original ideation through maintained task-focused attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 656–669.
19.
De RammelaereS.StuyvenE.VandierendonckA. (2001). Verifying simple arithmetic sums and products: Are the phonological loop and central executive involved?Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 267–273.
20.
EllisD. M.BrewerG. A. (2018). Aiding the search: Examining individual differences in multiply-constrained problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 62, 21–33.
21.
EngleR. W.KaneM. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 145–200.
22.
FinkA.BenedekM. (2012). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 111–123.
23.
FleckJ. I. (2008). Working memory demands in insight versus analytical problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 139–176.
24.
FurstA. J.HitchG. J. (2000). Separate roles for executive and phonological components of working memory in mental arithmetic. Memory & Cognition, 28(5), 774–782.
25.
GathercoleS. E. (1994). Neuropsychology and working memory: A review. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 494–505.
26.
GilhoolyK. J.BallL. J.MacchiL. (2015). Insight and creative thinking processes: Routine and special. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(1), 1–4.
27.
GuptaN.JangY.MednickS. C.HuberD. E. (2012). The road not taken: Creative solutions require avoidance of high-frequency responses. Psychological Science, 23(3), 288–294.
28.
HeitzR. P.EngleR. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 217–240.
29.
JensenO.GelfandJ.KouniosJ.LismanJ. E. (2002). Oscillations in the alpha band (9–12 Hz) increase with memory load during retention in a short-term memory task. Cerebral Cortex, 12, 877–882.
30.
Jung-BeemanM.BowdenE. M.HabermanJ.FrymiareJ. L.Arambel-LiuS.GreenblattR.ReberP. J.KouniosJ. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLOS Biology, 2(4), Article e97.
31.
KaneM. J.BleckleyM. K.ConwayA. R.EngleR. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 169–183.
32.
KaneM. J.EngleR. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal maintenance, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.
33.
KlimeschW.SausengP.HanslmayrS. (2007). EEG alpha oscillations: The inhibition timing hypothesis. Brain Research Reviews, 53, 63–88. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.06.003
34.
KyllonenP. C.StephensD. L. (1990). Cognitive abilities as determinants of success in acquiring logic skill. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 129–160.
35.
LavricA.ForstmeierS.RipponG. (2000). Differences in working memory involvement in analytical and creative tasks: An ERP study. NeuroReport, 11(8), 1613–1618.
36.
LuoJ.NikiK. (2003). Function of hippocampus in “insight” of problem solving. Hippocampus, 13, 316–323.
37.
MednickM. (1962). Research creativity in psychology graduate students. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 27, 265–266.
38.
MetcalfeJ.WiebeD. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15, 238–246.
39.
NewellA.SimonH. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Prentice Hall.
40.
ReverberiC.ToraldoA.D’AgostiniS.SkrapM. (2005). Better without (lateral) frontal cortex? Insight problems solved by frontal patients. Brain, 128(12), 2882–2890.
41.
RicksT. R.Turley-AmesK. J.WileyJ. (2007). Effects of working memory capacity on mental set due to domain knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 35(6), 1456–1462.
42.
RiskoE. F.DunnT. L. (2015). Storing information in-the-world: Metacognition and cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 61–74.
43.
RosenV. M.EngleR. W. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 162(3), 211–227.
44.
SchwabD.BenedekM.PapousekI.WeissE. M.FinkA. (2014). The time-course of EEG alpha power changes in creative ideation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 310.
45.
SeylerD. J.KirkE. P.AshcraftM. H. (2003). Elementary sub-traction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1339–1352.
46.
SmithK. A.HuberD. E.VulE. (2013). Multiply-constrained semantic search in the remote associates test. Cognition, 128, 64–75.
47.
TurnerM. L.EngleR. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.
48.
UnsworthN.EngleR. W. (2005). Individual differences in working memory capacity and learning: Evidence from the reaction time task. Memory & Cognition, 33(2), 213–220.
49.
UnsworthN.EngleR. W. (2007). Working memory capacity and fluid abilities: Examining the correlation between Operation Span and Raven. Intelligence, 33(1), 67–81.
50.
UnsworthN.HeitzR. P.SchrockJ. C.EngleR. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.
51.
UnsworthN.SchrockJ. C.EngleR. W. (2004). Working memory capacity and the antisaccade task: Individual differences in voluntary saccade control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1302–1321.
52.
UnsworthN.SpillersG. J. (2010). Working memory capacity: Attention, memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 392–406.
53.
UnsworthN.SpillersG. J.BrewerG. A. (2012). Working memory capacity and retrieval limitations from long-term memory: An examination of differences in accessibility. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(12), 2397–2410.
54.
WileyJ.JaroszA. F. (2011). How working memory capacity affects problem solving. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 56, 186–219.
55.
WileyJ.JaroszA. F. (2012). Working memory capacity, attentional focus, and problem solving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 258–262.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
