Exploring How Generating Metaphor Via Insight Versus Analysis Affects Metaphor Quality and Learning Outcomes

Abstract

Metaphor generation is both a creative act and a means of learning. When learning a new concept, people often create a metaphor to connect the new concept to existing knowledge. Does the manner in which people generate a metaphor, via sudden insight (Aha! moment) or deliberate analysis, influence the quality of generation and subsequent learning outcomes? According to some research, deliberate processing enhances knowledge retention; hence, generation via analysis likely leads to better concept learning. However, other research has shown that solutions generated via insight are better remembered. In the current study, participants were presented with science concepts and descriptions, then generated metaphors for the concepts. They also indicated how they generated each metaphor and rated their metaphor for novelty and aptness. We assessed participants' learning outcomes with a memory test and evaluated the creative quality of the metaphors based on self- and crowd-sourced ratings. Consistent with the deliberate processing benefit, participants became more familiar with the target science concept if they previously generated a metaphor for the concept via analysis compared to via insight. We also found that metaphors generated via analysis did not differ from metaphors generated via insight in quality (aptness or novelty) nor in how well they were remembered. However, participants' self-evaluations of metaphors generated via insight showed more agreement with independent raters, suggesting the role of insight in modulating the creative ideation process. These preliminary findings have implications for understanding the nature of insight during idea generation and its impact on learning.

Keywords: Aha moment; Insight; Learning; Metaphor; Verbal creativity.

Fig. 1.

Experiment procedure. Notes. (A) Pre-experiment Surveys: Participants completed a pre-experiment concept-familiarity survey (on a personal device) and the Metaphoric Triads Task (on a computer) before proceeding to the metaphor generation task. (B) Main Tasks: A trial includes an audio clip of a concept description, metaphor generation, a forced choice question of insight or analysis, self-rating of the metaphor’s novelty and aptness, and a brief explanation of how the metaphor fits with the concept. (C) Post-experiment Memory Test: In a follow-up session, participants completed an online survey to test how well they remembered the concepts they encountered during the previous session, as well as the metaphors they generated.

Fig. 2.

Memory of the target science concept: familiarity and recognition. Notes. The average change in (A) concept familiarity and (B) recognition rate for the target science concept after generating metaphors via insight and analysis.

Fig. 3.

Difference between self-ratings and crowd-ratings. Notes. The difference between self-ratings and crowd-ratings grouped by the manner of generation. Error bars indicate 1 standard error.