Emerging online ideation platforms with thousands of example ideas provide an important resource for creative production. But how can ideators best use these examples to create new innovations? Recent work has suggested that not just the choice of examples, but also the timing of their delivery can impact creative outcomes. Building on existing cognitive theories of creative insight, we hypothesize that people are likely to benefit from examples when they run out of ideas. We explore two example delivery mechanisms that test this hypothesis: 1) a system that proactively provides examples when a user appears to have run out of ideas, and 2) a system that provides examples when a user explicitly requests them. Our online experiment (N=97) compared these two mechanisms against two baselines: providing no examples and automatically showing examples at a regular interval. Participants who requested examples themselves generated ideas that were rated the most novel by external evaluators. Participants who received ideas automatically when they appeared to be stuck produced the most ideas. Importantly, participants who received examples at a regular interval generated fewer ideas than participants who received no examples, suggesting that mere access to examples is not sufficient for creative inspiration. These results emphasize the importance of the timing of example delivery. Insights from this study can inform the design of collective ideation support systems that help people generate many high quality ideas.

Prior work on creativity support tools demonstrates how a computational semantic model of a solution space can enable interventions that substantially improve the number, quality and diversity of ideas. However, automated semantic modeling often falls short when people contribute short text snippets or sketches. Innovation platforms can employ humans to provide semantic judgments to construct a semantic model, but this relies on external workers completing a large number of tedious micro tasks. This requirement threatens both accuracy (external workers may lack expertise and context to make accurate semantic judgments) and scalability (external workers are costly). In this paper, we introduce IDEAHOUND, an ideation system that seamlessly integrates the task of defining semantic relationships among ideas into the primary task of idea generation. The system combines implicit human actions with machine learning to create a computational semantic model of the emerging solution space. The integrated nature of these judgments allows IDEAHOUND to leverage the expertise and efforts of participants who are already motivated to contribute to idea generation, overcoming the issues of scalability inherent to existing approaches. Our results show that participants were equally willing to use (and just as productive using) IDEAHOUND compared to a conventional platform that did not require organizing ideas. Our integrated crowdsourcing approach also creates a more accurate semantic model than an existing crowdsourced approach (performed by external crowds). We demonstrate how this model enables helpful creative interventions: providing diverse inspirational examples, providing similar ideas for a given idea and providing a visual overview of the solution space.

A growing number of large collaborative idea generation platforms promise that by generating ideas together, people can create better ideas than any would have alone. But how might these platforms best leverage the number and diversity of contributors to help each contributor generate even better ideas? Prior research suggests that seeing particularly creative or diverse ideas from others can inspire you, but few scalable mechanisms exist to assess diversity. We contribute a new scalable crowd-powered method for evaluating the diversity of sets of ideas. The method relies on similarity comparisons (is idea A more similar to B or C?) generated by non-experts to create an abstract spatial idea map. Our validation study reveals that human raters agree with the estimates of dissimilarity derived from our idea map as much or more than they agree with each other. People seeing the diverse sets of examples from our idea map generate more diverse ideas than those seeing randomly selected examples. Our results also corroborate findings from prior research showing that people presented with creative examples generated more creative ideas than those who saw a set of random examples. We see this work as a step toward building more effective online systems for supporting large scale collective ideation.

Crowdsourced design feedback systems are emerging resources for getting large amounts of feedback in a short period of time. Traditionally, the feedback comes in the form of a declarative statement, which often contains positive or negative sentiment. Prior research has shown that overly negative or positive sentiment can strongly influence the perceived usefulness and acceptance of feedback and, subsequently, lead to ineffective design revisions. To enhance the effectiveness of crowdsourced design feedback, we investigate a new approach for mitigating the effects of negative or positive feedback by combining open-ended and thought-provoking questions with declarative feedback statements. We conducted two user studies to assess the effects of question-based feedback on the sentiment and quality of design revisions in the context of graphic design. We found that crowdsourced question-based feedback contains more neutral sentiment than statement-based feedback. Moreover, we provide evidence that presenting feedback as questions followed by statements leads to better design revisions than question-or statement-based feedback alone. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI).

Collaborative ideation systems can help people generate more creative ideas by exposing them to ideas different from their own. However, there are competing theoretical views on whether and when such exposure is helpful. Associationist theory suggests that exposing ideators to ideas that are semantically far from their own maximizes novel combinations of ideas. In contrast, SIAM theory cautions that systems should offer far ideas only when ideators reach an impasse (a cognitive state in which they have exhausted ideas within a particular category), and offer near ideas during productive ideation (a cognitive state in which they are actively exploring ideas within a category), which maximizes exploration within categories. Our research compares these theoretical recommendations.In an online experiment, 245 participants generated ideas for a themed wedding; we detected and validated participants' cognitive states using a combination of behavioral and neuroimaging data. Receiving far ideas during productive ideation resulted in slower ideation and less within-category exploration, without significant benefits for novelty, compared to receiving no inspirations. Participants were also more likely to hit an impasse when receiving far ideas during productive ideation. These findings suggest that far inspirational ideas can harm creativity if received during productive ideation.