Asking for Good Ideas can Hurt Creativity: The Effects of Two-step Instruction Method on Quantity and Quality of Ideas

As the importance of ideas as the basis of innovation is growing bigger, interest in ways to effectively generate creative ideas is increasing as well. This study focused on figuring out the effective methods of instruction used for generating ideas since conventional instructions asking for good ideas can hurt ideation. As an alternative to the conventional instructions, we proposed the Two-step method which gives instruction to generate random ideas that make no sense first and then requires people to revise generated ideas so as to make a lot of creative ideas. We conducted an experiment to find out whether the proposed Two-step method is more effective in generating creative ideas than the method that asks for good ideas or the method that requests random ideas that make no sense. Results show that the Two-step method can help people generate more creative ideas than other methods.

[1]  P. Paulus,et al.  Effects of Training on Idea Generation in Groups , 2008 .

[2]  M. Runco,et al.  The Standard Definition of Creativity , 2012 .

[3]  D. Reisberg.  The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology , 2013 .

[4]  Michael Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. , 1991 .

[5]  Beth A. Hennessey,et al.  The effect of extrinsic constraints on children's creativity while using a computer , 1989 .

[6]  Michael D. Mumford,et al.  Thinking Creatively at Work: Organization Influences on Creative Problem Solving , 1997 .

[7]  John F. Cabra,et al.  Creative Problem Solving in Small Groups: The Effects of Creativity Training on Idea Generation, Solution Creativity, and Leadership Effectiveness , 2018, The Journal of Creative Behavior.

[8]  Feng Shi,et al.  The Combinator: A Computer-Based Tool for Idea Generation , 2016 .

[9]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Social and Cognitive Influences in Group Brainstorming: Predicting Production Gains and Losses , 2002 .

[10]  David F. Redmiles,et al.  GroupMind: supporting idea generation through a collaborative mind-mapping tool , 2009, GROUP.

[11]  E. Loftus,et al.  Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory , 1974 .

[12]  M. Runco.  Reliability and Convergent Validity of Ideational Flexibility as a Function of Academic Achievement , 1985 .

[13]  D M Harrington,et al.  Effects of explicit instructions to "be creative" on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. , 1975, Journal of personality.

[14]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  What is a creative idea? Little-c versus Big-C creativity , 2013 .

[15]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm , 1996 .

[16]  Robert W. Weisberg,et al.  Case Studies of Innovation: Ordinary Thinking, Extraordinary Outcomes , 2003 .

[17]  Eric F. Rietzschel,et al.  Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. , 2006 .

[18]  R. Sternberg,et al.  The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. , 1998 .

[19]  Robert P. Abelson,et al.  The semantics of asking a favor: How to succeed in getting help without really dying. , 1972 .

[20]  E F Loftus,et al.  Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[21]  Introduction to special issue: The psychology of creativity and innovation in the workplace. , 2011 .

[22]  Jing Zhou,et al.  Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection , 2014 .

[23]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. , 1979 .