Intuition ratings are unaffected by RAPM item difficulty, indicating stable strategy across items¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Intuition did not vary reliably across the 20 RAPM items, supporting the null effect. → Adam Chuderski 2021

Evidence¶

Adam Chuderski 2021¶

Adam Chuderski, Jan Jastrzębski, Bartłomiej Kroczek, Hanna Kucwaj, Michał Ociepka. (2021). Metacognitive experience on Raven’s matrices versus insight problems. Metacognition and Learning 16:15–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09236-6

q3 · i? · associational · r2

BANOVA on 1017 correct-solution Intuition ratings across the 20 RAPM items. The null was supported (BF10 = 0.060); the article also notes a small effect size, ηp2 = .03, and that ratings generally fell below the criterion value 10, suggesting analytic rather than intuitive processing.

"Intuition did not vary reliably across the 20 RAPM items, with BF 10 = 0.060, supporting the null effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Correct RAPM solutions yield higher Suddenness and Certainty and lower Intuition than incorrect solutions, with a Certainty-by-difficulty interaction — related
• Suddenness and Certainty ratings decrease as RAPM item difficulty increases, with Certainty showing a strong effect — related
• Across participants, RAPM scores correlate positively with Certainty but not with Intuition or Suddenness — related
• Mean solution time almost perfectly predicts item-level Suddenness and Certainty, and fast performance signals easy items while deliberation signals hard ones — related
• The four-dimensional subjective-experience ratings are validated against classic insight and analytic problems, with Intuition and Suddenness differentiating the problem categories — related
• Subjective experience on the easiest RAPM items matches that of insight problems, while difficult items resemble analytic problems — related