Thinking hats and good men: Structured techniques in a problem construction task*Ian Hocking and David Vernon

School of Psychology, Politics & Sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, Kent. CT1 1QU, UK.

1* In press Thinking Skills and Creativity

Problem Construction• Problem identification and construction important in creative

thinking (e.g. Nickerson, 1999)– problem identification phase; idea generation phase;

implementation and reflection phase– How to get from identification to generation/construction?

• Typical experimental task:– Ps given 'problem statement', e.g. (Paletz & Peng, 2009, p.

5)• "I am in a new city and need dinner"

– Ps asked to think of problems (elaborations/restatements) relating to this statement• Do I have enough money? Can I find a map?

2

Assisting Problem Construction: Why might a technique help?

• Greater effort may produce more original and higher quality solutions (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994)

• Identifying more perspectives increases the probability of finding useful ideas to pursue (Sowden, Pringle, and Gabora, in press)

• Thus a technique promoting effort and perspectives should facilitate problem construction

3

Two Techniques

• Six Hats (de Bono, 1985)– White, green, yellow, black, red, blue

(information, creativity, positives, negatives, emotions, meta)

– Little evidence of effectiveness in problem construction

• Six Men (Kipling, 1993) (original 1902)– Who, what, when, where, how and why– No evidence of the technique being used in

problem construction4

Prediction

• Participants who use a structured technique in problem construction will be more creative than those who do not– (No clear idea at this stage what differences

we'd expect between the groups)

5

Method• N=100 (67 female); ages 22-70 (mean 48); between design• Online delivery via web browser• Experimental group training:

– Introduction to technique together with example problem ‘Mice are in my basement’

• Control group training:– Given an outline of what problem construction means

along with the same example problem and some example constructions

6

Method

• Test: Problem statement ‘I am in a new city and need dinner’

• Ps given 3 minutes to type ideas into text fields

Measures

• Two experiment-blind judges coded:– Fluency as number of problem

constructions– Quality [IRR .67] as degree to which

restatements are plausible/reasonable/viable [scale 1-5]

– Originality [IRR .75] as degree to which restatements are novel/unique [scale 1-5]

• Third experiment-blind judge arbitrated in cases of strong disagreement 8

Example responses• Six Hats

– W. Where can I go?– G. I might eat something new - different culture– B. What if I don't find anything? I'll be hungry and tired tomorrow for my

meeting• Six Men

– where am I– why am I here– how will can I get there

• Control– i don't know where i am and am peckish– i haven't eaten since lunch time and don't know where to go to get food– i am starving and need to find food but am lost

9

Results: Main Effect of Group

10

Structured Unstructured

DV Six Men Mean

Six Hats Mean

Control Mean ANOVAs (1-way, between)

Fluency (count)

10.34 9.24 8.11 F(2,97)=3.875, p=0.024

Originality (1-5)

3.32 3.54 2.86 F(2,97)=5.338, p=0.006

Quality (1-5)

3.92 3.92 3.69 F(2,97)=0.91, p=0.407

Contrasts: Fluency

11

Fluency

Contrast T Six Men Mean

Six Hats Mean

Control Mean

Six Men vs Control

t(97)=2.78, p=0.003 (planned), d=0.7

10.34 9.24 8.11

Six Hats vs Control

t(97)=1.42, p=0.079 (planned), d=0.33

10.34 9.24 8.11

Six Men vs Six Hats

t(64)=1.42, p=0.159

10.34 9.24 8.11

12

Originality

Contrast T Six Men Mean

Six Hats Mean

Control Mean

Six Men vs Control

t(97)2.14, p=0.017, d=0.49

3.32 3.54 2.86

Six Hats vs Control

t(97)3.20, p=0.001, d=0.76

3.32 3.54 2.86

Six Men vs Six Hats

t(64)1.21, p=0.230

3.32 3.54 2.86

Contrasts: Originality

13

Quality

Contrast T Six Men Mean

Six Hats Mean

Control Mean

Six Men vs Control

t(97)1.14, p=0.128

3.92 3.92 3.69

Six Hats vs Control

t(97)1.18, p=0.120

3.92 3.92 3.69

Quality

14

Originality

Quality

FluencyWhoWhatWhereWhenWhyHow

InformationCreativityPositivesNegativesEmotionOverview

Effect size .49

.7 .33 (p=0.08)

.76

Summary of Contrasts

Six Men Six Hats

Discussion

• No mean differences between Six Hats and Six Men

• Structured techniques versus control:• Quality: no effect (despite evidence this is

trainable, Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004)• 3 minutes too short?

• Originality: structure helps, Hats largest effect• Six Hats broadens construction categories?

• Fluency: structure helps, Men largest effect• Six Men helps finding instances/ideas? 15

Conclusions

• Supports impact of training on creativity (Scott, Leritz & Mumford, 2004); active engagement helps (Mumford et al., 1994)

• Effect of structure found despite– Self-taught technique (longer term training can

elicit greater effect, e.g. Wang & Horng, 2002)• Online, non-paid Ps

• Supports idea of intrinsic rewards helping creativity, extrinsic rewards harming (Hennessey & Amabile, 1987)

16

Future Directions

• How comparable is the control? (time; placebo)• Do all structured techniques help?• Is it just structure, or the semantic frame

provided by the structural elements?• Can we create the ‘perfect’ structure technique?• What happens with other/more problems?

• Fixed problem effects

17

Questions?

• Thank you!

References

• De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Harmondsworth: Viking.• Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. A. (1987). Creativity and

learning. Washington, DC.: NEA Professional Library.• Kipling, R. (1993). The Elephant’s Child and Other Just So

Stories. Dover: New York.• Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994).

Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. (pp. 3-39.). Norwood, NJ.: Ablex.

• Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & T. I. Lubart (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 392-430). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19

• Paletz, S. B. F., & Peng, K. (2009). Problem finding and contradiction: Examining the relationship between naive dialectical thinking, ethnicity, and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2), 1-13.

• Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E. J. (2009). Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 3(1), 43-47.

• The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388. doi:10.1080/10400410409534549

• Sowden, P. T., Pringle, A., & Gabora, L. (in press). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual process theory. Thinking & Reasoning.

• Vernon, D. & Hocking, I. (in press). Thinking hats and good men: Structured techniques in a problem construction task. Thinking Skills and Creativity. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.07.001

• Wang, C., & Horng, R. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management., 32(1), 35-45.

20

Addenda

21

Correlations between DVs

22