Problem Finding and Contradiction: Examining the Relationship Between Naive Dialectical Thinking, Ethnicity, and Creativity

Abstract

This research examined the association between naive dialectical thinking and creativity, measured as originality in problem construction and reframing (types of problem finding). Ethnic identity (Caucasian vs. Asian=Asian American) was examined as a moderator. Two correlational studies and one experimental study revealed a complex pattern of results: For problems with low inherent contradiction, naive dialectical thinking decreased originality on problem finding tasks, whereas for tasks with higher contradiction, there was no or even a slight positive effect. Furthermore, these relationships were found for Caucasian participants but not for Asian or Asian American participants. This research built upon the long-standing notion that dialectical thinking is positively associated with creativity, but suggests the relationship might be culture-, task-, and process-specific. The nature of dialectical thinking as involving the acceptance of contradiction or necessitating the resolution of tension should be explored.

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

“…In this instance use of the six hats tool, which provides more conceptual information could help to scaffold thinking in more direct ways, which in turn may have a greater effect on performance. Though speculative, such a proposal would be consistent with the view that techniques that provide more structure can have a greater effect on performance (Paletz & Peng, 2009;Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004a). Alternatively, or in addition to this complexity effect, it might be that there is a better match between the content of the tool and An issue not explored within this study but relevant to the field of training within CPS is the duration of any effects elicited by such training.…”

“…With this in mind it is no surprise that the easy-to-use tool proved most beneficial, though it should be noted that use of the six hats also led to greater originality relative to the placebo group. Nevertheless, a more ambiguous and/or ill-defined problem would be more difficult, requiring greater cognitive effort and as a consequence performance on a task utilising such a problem may be more influenced by a tool that provides greater conceptual information (see, Paletz & Peng, 2009). Hence it is possible that comparing the two tools (i.e., six men and six hats) on a problem construction task utilising a more complex problem may elicit a different pattern of effects.…”

“…with examples of how the technique could be used to help explore and understand the problem. This was followed by a brief explanation of problem finding and the focus on restating the problem to aid understanding and finally the problem used in the main part of the study, which was the same for all participants: 'I am in a new city and need dinner', which was taken from Paletz and Peng (2009). Beneath this was a grid containing 18 boxes for the participants to write in their restatements, with one box per restatement.…”

A Dual Process Account of Creative Thinking

“…The contention that dialectical thinking aids creativity has been supported by research by Wu and Chiou (2008), who found a positive correlation between dialectical thinking and performance on a divergent thinking task in young Taiwanese adults. However, Paletz and Peng (2009) found that Asians and Asian-Americans received similar originality scores on a test of problem conceptualisation regardless of their tendency towards dialectical thinking, whereas Caucasians displayed a negative relationship between dialectical thinking and originality, which suggests that the relationship between dialectical thinking and creativity may be culture-specific. Wu and Chiou's (2008) research measured dispositional dialectical thinking; a more experimental approach could be useful.…”

Thinking hats and good men: Structured techniques in a problem construction task

“…Those in the control group were given an outline of what problem finding means along with the same example problem and some example restatements. The problem used in the main part of the study was the same for all participants: 'I am in a new city and need dinner', which was taken from Paletz and Peng (2009).…”