LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: BF76.5
Research showing that active engagement in problem construction can improve creativity (Karpova et al., 2011) led us to examine whether problem construction ability could be facilitated using a structured thinking technique (e.g., six thinking hats, six good men). These techniques require the participant to either adopt multiple perspectives, incorporating a range of specific questions, or utilise a range of simple open ended questions. In Experiment 1 we randomly allocated 100 participants to groups utilising the six hats technique, the six men, or a no-intervention control group, and had them restate a given problem to which we measured the fluency, quality and originality of their responses. Results showed that both six hats and six men techniques produced greater fluency relative to controls, with a more robust effect for those using the six men. In terms of originality, both techniques proved beneficial relative to controls, with a more robust effect from those using the six hats. However, there was no clear difference in performance between the two structured techniques. This may be because we used an explicit problem statement (i.e., I’m in a new city and need dinner) that clearly identified the issue or it may simply be that providing an individual with a ‘technique’ encouraged them to think more creatively and as such the technique itself is little more than a placebo relative to those that receive no intervention. Hence, Experiment 2 aimed to directly compare the effects of the techniques on both clear and ambiguous problems while also incorporating a placebo condition. Results from experiment 2 are pending and will be reported at the conference.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article