The Influence of Constraints on Consumer Creativity

Page MoreauPhD ProseminarSeptember 17, 2004

Constraints & Consumer Creativity

Budgetary Constraint ($1,000 per house)

Time Constraint (2 days)

Creativity

Problem Solving Insight

Remote Associates Test (Mednick 1962) Rat, Blue, Cottage

Nine Dot Problem Connect all of the dots using no more than 4 straight lines,

never going to a given dot twice, and never lifting the pen

Creativity

Problem Solving Insight Problem Finding

Requires Problem Definition Requires an allocation of cognitive capital (Sternberg &

Lubart 1991) to “think about what you’re going to think about” (Nickerson 2000) More associated with creativity

(Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels 1971; 1975)

Creativity Defined

The ability to produce work that is BOTH Novel (i.e., original, unexpected, innovative) Appropriate (i.e., useful, practical, effective)

(Sternberg 1999; Finke, Ward, & Smith 1992)

The novel/original dimension is the more

respected of the two (Barron 1995; Runco & Sakamoto 1999)

Approaches to Studying Creativity Case Studies / Historiometric Developmental Biological Psychometric Experimental

Social-Personality (e.g. motivation, risk-taking, intelligence)

Cognitive (e.g., processing strategies, imagery)

The Creative Cognition Approach Creative accomplishments, whether

mundane or extraordinary, are based on ordinary mental processes

Thus, our understanding of human cognition can be directly applied to understanding creative thought as well

The Creative Cognition Approach The Geneplore Model

Generative Processes Pre-Inventive Structures (Finke, Ward, and Smith 1992) Mental transformation / assimilation to create a structure For example, arrange an 8, a V, and a circle to make a figure or

structure Exploratory Processes

Creative Cognition

Path of Least Resistance (“POLR”) (Perkins 1997; Ward 1994)

Top-Down Process Recall an existing solution to an active problem Implement a well-known plan to solve it

Constraints and the POLR

Constraints Input Restrictions

In-Stock (Acquisition Costs) Monetary (Budgetary Constraints)

Input Constraints and the POLR

Constraints and the POLR

Constraints Input Restrictions

In-Stock (Acquisition Costs) Monetary (Budgetary Constraints)

Input Requirements Regulatory

Time

Constraints & Cognitive Processing H1: When inputs are both

restricted and required, participants will deviate from the POLR, showing more evidence of

creative processing than participants for whom one or more

of the constraints are relaxed.

Cognitive Processing & Creativity H2: Creative processing will be

positively related to the rated novelty of the product produced but will not be significantly related to its appropriateness.

Study 1

Creative Task: “Design a toy, anything a child (age 5-11) can use

to play with.” Design:

2 X 2 between subjects Up to 5 shapes to be used as inputs Factors

Input Restrictions (we choose vs. they choose) Input Requirements (use all 5 vs. use as many)

Shapes

3-D Half Sphere 3-D Sphere3-D Cube

3-D Handle

3-D Cone

3-D Cylinder

Flat, Hollow Square Flat Cross Flat Triangle Flat Ring

Shapes

Solid Hook Flat Circle (disk) 3-D Bracket Flat Diamond

3-D Rectangular Block

Flat Square PyramidFlat Narrow Cross

Thin Pole

3-D “U” Shape

Study 1

Dependent Variables Creativity: Novelty and Appropriateness

Toy ideas judged by three professional designers on their novelty and usefulness (3 items for each)

Scores standardized within judge

Study 1

Study 1

Dependent Variables Creativity: Novelty and Appropriateness

Toy ideas judged by three professional designers on their novelty and usefulness (3 scales for each)

Scores standardized within judge, and summed to form an overall creativity index

Creative (Generative and Exploratory) Processes Please describe the process you used to come up with your design

(i.e., how did you go about creating your final toy design - what steps did you take - how did you approach the task). Please be sure to write down as much of the process as you can put into words.

Protocols coded by 2 RAs using 6 scale measures

Study 1 Results

Creative Processes ANCOVA

Predictors: 2 manipulated factors and their interaction 2 covariates: language and time

Results: A main effect of input restrictions (F(1, 95) = 9.20, p < .01)

(M we choose = .64 vs. M they choose = - .56) An interaction between the restrictions and requirements

(F (1, 95) = 3.96, p < .05)

Study 1 Results Creative Processes

1.34

-0.16

-0.53

-0.58

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

they choose we choose

The

Ext

ent

of G

ener

ativ

e an

d E

xplo

rato

ry P

roce

ssin

g

use as many use all

Study 1 Results Novelty and Appropriateness

Regression Predictors

2 manipulated factors and their interaction The creative processes index 2 covariates: language and time

Novelty Results: Main effect of creative processes (B = .27) Main effect of time (B = .29)

Appropriateness Results: Main effect of time (B = .24)

Total Creativity: Main effect of creative processes (B = .29) Main effect of time (B = .35)

Study 1 Discussion

Summary When either input constraints are relaxed,

participants revert to the POLR.

Limitations Is it really the restriction of the parts driving the effect

or is the ability to choose interacting with the input requirements?

Study 2

Purpose To rule out the possibility that it’s the act of choosing the

parts (or the selected parts themselves) that decreases creative processing.

To provide further evidence that top-down, goal-directed processes are consistent with following the POLR.

H3: When participants who choose their parts do so in the absence of a problem or goal, their creative

processing will be similar to those for whom the parts were chosen.

H3 Prediction

1.34

-0.16

-0.53

-0.58

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

they choose we choose

The

Ext

ent o

f G

ener

ativ

e an

d E

xplo

rato

ry P

roce

ssin

g

use as many use all

Study 2

Design and Procedure Exactly the same as Study 1 with one exception:

Those who are able to choose their parts do so PRIOR to receiving the task instructions (that they will be creating a toy).

Study 2 Results

Creative Processes ANCOVA

Predictors: 2 manipulated factors and their interaction 2 covariates: language and time

Results: A main effect of input requirements (F(1, 70) = 6.34, p = .01)

(M use as many = -.94 vs. M use all = .98)

Study 2 Results – Creative Processing

-0.85

1.46

-1.32

0.67

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

they choose we choose

Ext

ent o

f C

reat

ive

Pro

cess

ing

use as many use all

Study 2 Results Novelty and Appropriateness

Regression Predictors

2 manipulated factors and their interaction The creative processes index 2 covariates: language and time

Novelty Results: Main effect of creative processes (B = .35)

Appropriateness Results: Main effect of time (B = .24)

Total Creativity: Main effect of creative processes (B = .25)

Study 2 Discussion

Summary Ruled out the possible alternative explanation

that the ability to select the parts drove our effects Provided further evidence that top-down processes

are consistent with a POLR strategy

Study 3: The Influence of Time The Influence of Time

Do time constraints also work to push people off the POLR or does time operate differently as a constraint?

Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration (Edison) Most creative individuals and creativity researchers argue

that hard work matters (e.g., Amabile 2001; Ward, Finke and Smith 2001; John Irving).

Recent work by Burroughs and Mick (2004) Predicts and finds a negative main effect of time on

creativity (i.e., time constraints yield more creative solutions)

Their manipulation:

“Just suppose you are going out to dinner one evening. You have justmoved into the area to take a new job. It is the annual companybanquet held by your new employer…and you are going to be called upfront to be introduced by your new boss. You put on a black outfit andthink you are ready for the dinner when you discover your new shoesare all scuffed up and the scuffs are definitely noticeable. You thendiscover that you are out of shoe polish.

This is the only pair of shoes you have to go with this outfit and there isreally no other outfit you can wear. You have 2 minutes (3 hours)before you must head out to dinner in order to be on time. All of thestores are closed in your part of town for the evening. The mall is openbut it means an extra 5 miles of freeway driving.”

What do you do?

Study 3: The Influence of Time Is that a manipulation of time constraints or input

constraints? What is the effect when the time to generate the solution

is actually constrained?

H4a: When input constraints are operating,

time will have a positive effect on creative processing.

H4b: When input constraints are not operating, time will not have a significant effect on creative processing.

Study 3

Creative Task: “Design a toy, anything a child (age 5-11) can use

to play with.” Design:

2 X 2 between subjects Factors

Input constraints (high: we choose and use all vs. low: choose 5 and use as many)

Time (constrained: 5 minutes vs. unconstrained: as many minutes)

Study 3 Results

Creative Processing ANCOVA

Predictors: 2 manipulated factors and their interaction 1 covariate: language

Results: An interaction between input constraints and time

(F(1, 131) = 5.02, p < .05)

Study 3 Results – Creative Processing

1.01

-0.06

-0.31

-0.60

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

they choose we chooseExt

ent o

f Cre

ativ

e Pr

oces

sing

time constrained time unconstrained

Study 3 Results Novelty and Appropriateness

Regression Predictors

2 manipulated factors and their interaction The creative processes index 1 covariate: language

Novelty Results: Main effect of creative processes (B = .17) Main effect of input constraints (B = .35)

Appropriateness Results: Main effect of input constraints (B = .31)

Study 3 Discussion

Summary Input constraints, when combined with sufficient

time, facilitate creative processes

Future Research: Additional Types of Constraints Outcome

The Creation vs. the Realization of the Solution Representation

An Example:

BEEHIVE CAKE MOLD    $16.00 - $65.00     It's hard to find 3-dimensional cake molds, particularly in such an unusual shape. This 2-part mold, reproduced in cast aluminum from an antique, turns out an impressive cake that belies how easy it is to make. The mold comes with our recipes and instructions for a cake and glaze made with—what else?—honey. Use almond paste and our complete gel set to help you do it. For a finishing touch, fashion a few marzipan bees with almond-slice wings to buzz around your creation. Exclusive. Serves 16. (8''H; 8'' diam.)

Marzipan BeesBeautifully crafted and irresistibly sweet, these marzipan candies are handmade at the workshops of Wendy Kromer Confections. Each bee is created from black and yellow marzipan and set to take flight on sliced almond wings. No two are exactly alike. Store the candies in a cool, dry place. Set of 5. Exclusive.         Beehive Cake MoldKCM 006$65.00 Marzipan BeesKSS 021$16.00

Future Research: Additional Types of Constraints Outcome

The Creation of the Solution Representation Process Experience Knowledge Intelligence

The Cookie Study

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan 2000) More specific than other motivation theories

(e.g., flow theory, Csikszentmihalyi 1975; 1990) 3 key needs underlie human motivation:

Autonomy Competence Relatedness

Hennessey (2000) advocated the use of SDT to understand the social psychology of creativity and requested that researchers “think more about how SDT might be specifically applied to the creative process.”

The Cookie Study

Creative Task: To make and decorate a cookie

Design: 2 x 2 x 2 between subjects design Factors

Outcome Constraint: Solution Representation (yes - fixed form vs. no fixed form)

The Cookie Study

Creative Task: To make and decorate a cookie

Design: 2 x 2 x 2 between subjects design Factors

Outcome Constraint: Solution Representation (fixed form vs. no fixed form)

Process Constraint: Level of Instruction Provided (none vs. full instructions and tool descriptions)

Knowledge Constraint: Prior Baking Experience (low vs. high)

The Cookie Study Procedure

The Cookie Study

The Cookie Study Procedure Dependent Measures

Autonomy Competence Task Enjoyment

Results – The Cookie Study

Autonomy Main effect of solution representation

Lower perceived autonomy when forced to make specific cookie

Competence Main effect of solution representation

Lower perceived competence when forced to make specific cookie

Main effect of experience Higher perceived competence with experience

Three way interaction:

Results – The Cookie Study

CompetenceInexperienced Bakers

-2.29

1.78

-0.64

-4.97

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

No Instructions Instructions

Comp

etenc

e

No Solution Representation Solution Representation

Experienced Bakers

2.91

-0.16

1.68

1.78

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

No Instructions Instructions

Comp

etenc

e

No Solution Representation Solution Representation

Results – The Cookie Study

Task Enjoyment Main effect of solution representation

Lower task enjoyment when forced to make specific cookie Main effect of experience

Higher task enjoyment with experience Main effect of competence

Positive correlation between competence and enjoyment Main effect of gender

Higher task enjoyment for women

Conclusion

Directions for Future Research