The illusion of insight: detailed warnings reduce but do not prevent false “Aha!” moments

Figures & data

Table 1. Three instruction conditions.

Control	Warning	Warning + Explanation
The first group served as a control group given no warning about the possibility of experiencing false insights. Participants watched a video with the standard FIAT instructions in which they are told to study the list and remember as many as possible, Aim: Replicate the findings from Grimmer et al. (2022a).	Participants warned that the experiment contained a trick that could lead them to solve some anagrams incorrectly without revealing the nature of the effect completely. They watched a video with the same instructions as the control group and a brief warning that half of their solutions may be incorrect. Aim: Test whether cautioning participants against providing incorrect solutions would make them more careful when solving the anagrams.	Participants were given the same warning as the previous condition along with a full explanation of the FIAT paradigm. The video also contained a visual demonstration of how the FIAT elicits false insights. Aim: Our best attempt to eliminate the false insight effect by not just raising participants’ caution but telling them exactly what to be cautious of.

Figure 1. Proportion of Trials With False Insights Reported in Each Instruction Condition for each Anagram Type. Note. Data points illustrate the proportion of trials with false insights recorded for each participant. Means and standard deviations are shown in black.

Grimmer, H. J., Laukkonen, R. E., Tangen, J. M., & von Hippel, W. (2022a). Eliciting false insights with semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 954–970. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02049-x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar