View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by SHAREOK repository UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ASSEMBLING THE BOX: THE ROLE OF CONSTRAINTS IN CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By KELSEY MEDEIROS Norman, OKlahoma 2016 ASSEMBLING THE BOX: THE ROLE OF CONSTRAINTS IN CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY BY _______________________________________ Dr. Michael Mumford, Chair _______________________________________ Dr. Shane Connelly _______________________________________ Dr. Jorge Mendoza _______________________________________ Dr. Eric Day _______________________________________ Dr. Randa Shehab © Copyright by KELSEY MEDEIROS 2016 All Rights Reserved. Acknowledgements The authors thank Marina Soodan, Megan Harrison, Cooper Delafield, Kevin Green, Logan Steele, Logan Watts, Tyler Mulhern, Tristan McIntosh, and Paul Partlow for their contribution to the present effort. Correspondence should be addressed to Kelsey Medeiros, Department of Psychology, The University of OKlahoma, Norman, OKlahoma 73019 or [email protected] iv Table of Contents AcKnowledgements ......................................................................................................................... iv Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. viii Creative Problem Solving .......................................................................................................... 3 Constraints in Problem Definition ........................................................................................ 5 Constraints in Conceptual Combination and Idea Generation .................................. 7 Constraints and Idea Evaluation ......................................................................................... 10 Constraint Type and Creative Performance ................................................................... 11 Model Testing .............................................................................................................................. 15 Method ................................................................................................................................................ 17 General Procedure .................................................................................................................... 17 Sample ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Experimental TasK .................................................................................................................... 18 Manipulations ............................................................................................................................. 21 Covariates ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Dependent Variables ................................................................................................................ 26 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Main Effects .................................................................................................................................. 29 Interactions .................................................................................................................................. 35 Path Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 38 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 42 References ......................................................................................................................................... 48 v List of Tables Table 1. Dependent Variables ................................................................................................... 27 Table 2. ANCOVA Results for the Main Effect of Timing ................................................ 32 Table 3. ANCOVA Results for the Main Effect of Type/Amount ................................. 34 Table 4. ANCOVA Results for Constraint Type and Timing .......................................... 37 Table 5. Correlation matrix - quality ...................................................................................... 39 Table 6. Correlation matrix – originality .............................................................................. 39 Table 7. Correlation matrix – elegance ................................................................................. 39 Table 8. Fit Statistics (Model 1 – Proposed Model) ......................................................... 39 Table 9. Fit Statistics (Model 2 – Alternative Model) ...................................................... 40 Table 10. Path Analysis Results for Quality ........................................................................ 40 Table 11. Path Analysis Results for Originality ................................................................. 41 Table 12. Path Analysis Results for Elegance ..................................................................... 41 vi List of Figures Figure 1. Model 1 (Proposed Model) ..................................................................................... 16 Figure 2. Model 2 (Traditional Model) .................................................................................. 16 vii Abstract Although traditional conceptions of creativity argue for the benefits of a free and unconstrained creative process, recent research suggests that implementing constraints may enhance creative problem solving. Previous studies investigating this relationship, however, primarily examine the relationship between constraints and idea generation. The present effort aimed to add to our understanding of this relationship by examining the role of constraints at the process level. Approximately 300 undergraduate students completed an experimental tasK in which the type, number, and timing of constraints were manipulated. All participants engaged in four processes: problem identification, conceptual combination, idea generation, and idea evaluation prior to developing a final solution. Each process and the final proposal were coded and used as dependent variables in the analysis. Results suggest that introducing constraints prior to problem identification improves creative performance on final proposals and that constraints encourage engagement in evaluative processing. Findings regarding effects of types and amount of constraints on specific processes, as well as the implications of these results, are discussed. Keywords: creative problem solving, constraints, problem identification, conceptual combination, idea generation, idea evaluation viii Assembling the box: Constraints and creative problem solving The phrase “thinking outside the box” saturates popular conceptions of creativity with the idea that the creative process requires unbridled freedom. Osborn’s (1957) seminal worK in brainstorming typifies this thinking, calling for wild and unevaluated idea generation. Similarly, the “blue-sky” technique (Buzan, 1993; De Bono, 1992) calls for free association when generating ideas, and encourages individuals to follow their instinct and avoid systematic investigations of problems. Recently, however, these ideas have been increasingly challenged by studies (e.g., Litchfield, 2008; Paulus, NaKui, Putman, & Brown, 2006; Rietzschel, SlijKhuis, & Van Ypere, 2014) revealing the benefits of structure or rules to creative performance. Still others have argued that perhaps creativity isn’t about thinking outside the box, but instead, developing a creative solution that fits inside the box (Medeiros, Watts, & Mumford, in press). The rules, structure, and our metaphorical box, act as a constraint on creativity. Each inherently limits or restricts what is possible, a concept incompatible with traditional views of creative problem solving. These changing perceptions of creativity have led to a burgeoning area of research focusing on what, when, and how constraints may influence creative problem solving. For instance, Hoegl, Gibbert, and Mazursky (2008) argued that although resource slacK is often considered an important factor for creativity and innovation (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Damanpour, 1991), a lack of resources may be compensated for by team and project characteristics such as cohesion, potency, domain-relevant skills, and exciting project goals. Similarly, in an experimental 1 study, Medeiros, Partlow, and Mumford (2014) found creative problem solving was not hindered when certain constraints were presented and participants were high in Need for Cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). In other words, if participants were willing to work with the constraints presented, their solutions were not harmed by the presence of constraints. While experimental studies have made it possible to isolate certain