Beyond belief: Structured techniques prove more effective than a placebo intervention in a problem construction task

Abstract

Problem construction is one of the first steps in creative problem solving and research has shown clear links between problem construction ability and creative output. Here, we compared two active techniques with that of a placebo intervention and show a benefit in problem construction performance for the active techniques. The active techniques required participants to either utilise six questions (six men), or adopt six perspectives, incorporating a range of specific questions (six hats). The placebo intervention (brain-breathing) was specifically constructed to seem both plausible and effective. We had 118 participants randomly allocated to one of the three groups (six men, six hats, brain-breathing) and, after reading a brief synopsis of their allocated tool, they then attempted to restate a given problem in as many different ways as they could within an allotted time. Performance was measured in terms of the fluency, quality, flexibility and originality of responses. Results showed that using the six men tool produced greater fluency, flexibility and originality relative to brainbreathing and the six hats. Use of the six hats tool also led to the production of more original responses relative to the brain-breathing control group. Importantly, there was no difference in reported motivation between the groups, but those using the six men and the brainbreathing tools found these easier to use compared to the six hats. Furthermore, those using the six men tool found this to be more useful and indicated that they were more likely to use this again in the future. Hence, both six men and six hats tools benefited performance, though in distinct ways. These results support the notion that explicitly scaffolding thinking can benefit creative problem solving.

Effect of Mind Mapping on Creative Thinking of Children in Scratch Visual Programming Education

“…Therefore, hypothesis 2 was confirmed. This result is in line with the study of Vernon and Hocking (2016).…”

Integrating workplace meetings and team creative process literature: A multi-level perspective

“…The authors found that those who were instructed to make restatement of a marketing campaign problem produced more creative ideas than those who were not instructed. A similar finding of active engagement in problem construction through structured activities was observed in later work (e.g., Vernon & Hocking, 2014, 2016). Instructions can also be beneficial for team problem construction.…”

An Evidence-Based Review of Creative Problem Solving Tools

“…Use of the STH in a problem construction task, involving restating a given problem, has been shown to increase the number of restatements, with such restatements being classified as more original compared with the responses from a no-intervention control group (Vernon & Hocking, 2014, 2016). This shows that helping to structure the problem finding process in this way can improve an individual’s creative output.…”

“…Such a view is consistent with research showing that the use of open questions elicits more diverse responses than close-ended questions (e.g., Reja, Manfreda, Hlebec, & Vehovar, 2003). Vernon and Hocking (2014) showed that participants who used this tool in a problem construction task, which required them to restate a given problem, produced a greater number of ideas that were rated as more original compared with a no-intervention control group (see also Vernon & Hocking, 2016). The use of such open-ended questions can encourage the individual to stretch themselves and adopt multiple perspectives when dealing with a problem, which some have argued would support the later problem solving processes (McFadzean, 1998).…”