Does Thinking in Opposites in Order to Think Differently Improve Creativity?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Role of Constraints in Creativity: The Structure of the Problem and Directing the Problem Solver’s Search for More Creative Solutions
2.1. The Structure of the Problem
2.2. The Role of the Instructions Relating to the Task
2.3. Hints and Training as Aids to Overcoming Fixation
3. Thinking in Opposites and Creativity: Traces of a Link
4. The Rationale for Setting Up a More Extensive Research Program on Opposites and Creativity
5. Methodological and Theoretical Questions for a Future Research Agenda
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Acar, Oguz A., Murat Tarakci, and Daan van Knippenberg. 2019. Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management 45: 96–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acar, Selcuk, Mark A. Runco, and Hyeri Park. 2020. What should people be told when they take a divergent thinking test? A meta-analytic review of explicit instructions for divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 14: 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agogué, Marine, Akin Kazakçi, Armand Hatchuel, Pascal Le Masson, Benoit Weil, Nicolas Poirel, and Mathieu Cassotti. 2014. The Impact of Type of Examples on Originality: Explaining Fixation and Stimulation Effects. The Journal of Creative Behavior 48: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alter, Adam L., Daniel M. Oppenheimer, Nicholas Epley, and Rebecca N. Eyre. 2007. Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136: 569–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Altshuller, Genrich. 1999. The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation, and Technical Creativity. Worcester: Technical Innovation Center. [Google Scholar]
- Ammalainen, Artur, and Nadezhda Moroshkina. 2021. The effect of true and false unreportable hints on anagram problem solving restructuring, and the Aha!-experience. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 33: 644–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ammalainen, Artur, and Nadezhda Moroshkina. 2022. Where Does Eureka Come From? The Effect of Unreportable Hints on the Phenomenology of Insight. Journal of Intelligence 10: 110. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Ansburg, Pamela I., and Roger I. Dominowski. 2000. Promoting insightful problem solving. Journal of Creative Behaviour 34: 30–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Augustinova, Maria. 2008. Falsification cueing in collective reasoning: Example of Wason selection task. European Journal of Social Psychology 38: 770–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baer, John, and James C. Kaufman. 2008. Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 42: 75–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baruah, Jonali, and Paul B. Paulus. 2008. Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research 39: 523–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beaty, Roger E., and Paul J. Silvia. 2012. Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent thinking tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 6: 309–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beaty, Roger E., Mathias Benedek, Paul J. Silvia, and Daniel L. Schachter. 2016. Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20: 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, Sarah R., and Carlie Guthrie. 2011. Almost thinking counterfactually: Children’s understanding of close counterfactuals. Child Development 82: 1189–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beketayev, Kenes, and Mark A. Runco. 2016. Scoring divergent thinking tests by computer with a semantics-based algorithm. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 12: 210–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergum, Judith E., and Bruce O. Bergum. 1979. Self-perceived creativity and ambiguous figure reversal rates. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 14: 373–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, and Ugo Savardi. 2008. The relationship perceived between the real body and the mirror image. Perception 5: 666–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bianchi, Ivana, and Ugo Savardi. 2018. Spatial contraries and mirrors. In Spatial Biases in Perception and Cognition. Edited by Timothy Hubbard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 209–221. [Google Scholar]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Carita Paradis, Roberto Burro, Joost van de Weijer, Marcus Nyström, and Ugo Savardi. 2017a. Identification of opposites and intermediates by eye and by hand. Acta Psychologica 180: 175–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Carla Canestrari, Anna Maria Roncoroni, Roberto Burro, Erika Branchini, and Ugo Savardi. 2017b. The effects of modulating contrast in verbal irony as a cue for giftedness. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research 30: 383–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Elena Capitani, Erika Branchini, Ugo Savardi, and Roberto Burro. 2021a. Naïve intuitions about what constitutes “an opposite process”. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 33: 410–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Erika Branchini, Carla Canestrari, and Roberto Burro. 2022. On pleasures of the mind related to humour and insight problem solving: An investigation of people’s awareness of what they like and why. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 34: 778–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Erika Branchini, Roberto Burro, Elena Capitani, and Ugo Savardi. 2020. Overtly prompting people to “think in opposites” supports insight problem solving. Thinking and Reasoning 26: 31–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Erika Branchini, Stefania Torquati, Arianna Fermani, Elena Capitani, Veronica Barnaba, Ugo Savardi, and Roberto Burro. 2021b. Non experts’ understanding of terms frequently used by experts to describe the sensory properties of wine: An investigation based on opposites. Food Quality and Preference 92: 1042015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Roberto Burro, Roberta Pezzola, and U. Ugo Savardi. 2017c. Matching visual and acoustic mirror forms. Symmetry 9: 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Ugo Savardi, and Michael Kubovy. 2011. Dimensions and their poles: A metric and topological theory of opposites. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 1232–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, Ivana, Ugo Savardi, Roberto Burro, and Maria Francesca Martelli. 2014. Doing the opposite to what another person is doing. Acta Psychologica 151: 117–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biassoni, Federica. 2009. Basic qualities in naïve subjects’ perception of voice. Are they based on contrary properties? In The Perception and Cognition of Contraries. Edited by Ugo Savardi. Milano: McGraw Hill, pp. 131–52. [Google Scholar]
- Bilalić, Merim, Mario Graf, Nemanja Vaci, and Amory H. Danek. 2021. The temporal dynamics of insight problem solving–restructuring might not always be sudden. Thinking and Reasoning 27: 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biskjaer, Michael M., Bo Christensen, Morten Friis-Olivarius, Sille J. J. Abildgaard, Caroline Lundquist, and Kim Halskov. 2020. How task constraints affect inspiration search strategies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 30: 101–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowden, Edward. 1997. The effect of reportable and unreportable hints on anagram solution and the aha! experience. Consciousness and Cognition 6: 545–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branchini, Erika, Ivana Bianchi, Roberto Burro, Elena Capitani, and Ugo Savardi. 2016. Can Contraries Prompt Intuition in Insight Problem Solving? Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branchini, Erika, Roberto Burro, Ivana Bianchi, and Ugo Savardi. 2015a. Contraries as an effective strategy in geometrical problem solving. Thinking and Reasoning 21: 397–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branchini, Erika, Ugo Savardi, and Ivana Bianchi. 2015b. Productive thinking: The role of perception and perceiving opposition. Gestalt Theory 37: 7–24. [Google Scholar]
- Briggs, Robert O., and Bruce A. Reinig. 2010. Bounded ideation theory. Journal of Management Information Systems 27: 123–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broderbauer, Sandra, Michael Huemer, and Franz Riffert. 2013. On the effectiveness of incidental hints in problem solving revisiting Norman Maier and Karl Duncker. Gestalt Theory 35: 349–64. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, Ruth M. J. 2018. Counterfactual reasoning and Imagination. In The Routledge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Edited by Linden J. Ball and Valerie A. Thompson. London: Routledge, pp. 71–87. [Google Scholar]
- Canestrari, Carla, Erika Branchini, Ivana Bianchi, Ugo Savardi, and Roberto Burro. 2018. Pleasures of the Mind: What Makes Jokes and Insight Problems Enjoyable. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 2297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caniëls, Marjolein C., and Eric F. Rietzschel. 2013. Organizing Creativity: Creativity and Innovation under Constraints. Creativity and Innovation Management 22: 100–2. [Google Scholar]
- Capitani, Elena, Erika Branchini, Roberto Burro, Ugo Savardi, and Ivana Bianchi. 2020. The opposite of a transformation process. An exploration based on diagrams. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 32: 698–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, John B., Paul M. Kjeldegaard, and Aaron S. Carton. 1962. Opposites vs primaries in free association. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1: 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casasola, Marinella, Leslie B. Cohen, and Elizabeth Chiarello. 2003. Six-month-old infants’ categorization of containment spatial relations. Child Development 74: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casasola, Marinella. 2008. The development of infants’ spatial categories. Current Direction in Psychological Science 7: 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaffois, Cédric, Thomas Gillier, Mustapha Belkhouja, and Yanning Roth. 2015. How task instructions impact the creativity of designers and ordinary participants in online idea generation. Paper presented at 22nd Innovation & Product Development Management Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 14–16. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Chuansheng, Joseph Kasof, Ami Himsel, Julia Dmitrieva, Q. Qi Dong, and Gui Xue. 2005. Effects of explicit instruction to “be creative” across domains and cultures. The Journal of Creative Behavior 39: 89–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, Paul R., Joy P. Guilford, and Robert C. Wilson. 1957. Relations of creative responses to working time and instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 53: 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chrysikou, Evangelia G., and Robert W. Weisberg. 2005. Following the wrong footsteps: Fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem solving task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31: 1134–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Conner, Tamlin S., Coling G. DeYoung, and Paul J. Silvia. 2018. Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology 13: 181–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele, and Sergio Agnoli. 2015. On the path towards the science of creative thinking. In Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking. Edited by Giovanni Emanuele Corazza and Sergio Agnoli. Singapore: Springer, pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
- Cramond, Bonnie, Juanita Matthews-Morgan, Deborah Bandalos, and Li Zuo. 2005. A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly 49: 283–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 2013. Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial. [Google Scholar]
- Danek, Amory H. 2018. Magic tricks, sudden restructuring and the Aha! experience: A new model of non-monotonic problem solving. In Insight: On the Origins of New Ideas. Edited by Frédérick Vallee-Tourangeau. London: Routledge, pp. 51–78. [Google Scholar]
- Danek, Amory H., and Carola Salvi. 2020. Moment of truth: Why Aha! experiences are correct. The Journal of Creative Behavior 54: 484–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danek, Amory H., and Jennifer Wiley. 2017. What about false insights? Deconstructing the Aha! experience along its multiple dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions separately. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danek, Amory H., Joshua Williams, and Jennifer Wiley. 2020. Closing the gap: Connecting sudden representational change to the subjective Aha! experience in insightful problem solving. Psychological Research 84: 111–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danek, Amory H., Thomas Fraps, Albrecht von Müller, Benedikt Grothe, and M. Michael Öllinger. 2014. It’s a kind of magic–what self-reports can reveal about the phenomenology of insight problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bono, Edward. 1967. The Use of Lateral Thinking. London: Cape. [Google Scholar]
- Doherty, Martin J., and Samantha Mair. 2012. Creativity, ambiguous figures, and academic preference. Perception 41: 1262–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dollinger, Stephen J., Klaus K. Urban, and Troy A. James. 2004. Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal 16: 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dow, Gayle T., and Richard E. Mayer. 2004. Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal 16: 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumas, Denis, and Linda Schmidt. 2015. Relational reasoning as predictor for engineering ideation success using TRIZ. Journal of Engineering Design 26: 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumas, Denis, Patricia A. Alexander, and Emily M. Grossnickle. 2013. Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review 25: 391–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncker, Karl. 1935. Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkes. [The psychology of productive thinking]. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Epstude, Kai, and Neal J. Roese. 2008. The Functional Theory of Counterfactual Thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12: 168–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., and Keith E. Stanovich. 2013a. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8: 223–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., and Keith E. Stanovich. 2013b. Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: Reply to comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8: 263–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feist, Gregory J. 1998. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2: 290–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldhusen, John F. 1995. Creativity: A knowledge base, metacognitive skills, and personality factors. Journal of Creative Behaviour 29: 255–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fine, Philip A., Amory H. Danek, Kathryn J. Friedlander, Ian Hocking, and William F. Thompson. 2019. Editorial: Novel approaches for studying creativity in problem-solving and artistic performance. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FitzGibbon, Lily, Henrike Moll, Julia Carboni, Ryan Lee, and Morteza Dehghani. 2019. Counterfactual curiosity in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 183: 146–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forthmann, Boris, Andrea Wilken, Philipp Doebler, and Holling Heinz. 2019. Strategy induction enhances creativity in figural divergent thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior 53: 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forthmann, Boris, Anne Gerwig, Heinz Holling, Pinar Çelik, Martin Storme, and Todd Lubart. 2016. The be-creative effect in divergent thinking: The interplay of instruction and object frequency. Intelligence 57: 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forthmann, Boris, Carsten Szardenings, and Heinz Holling. 2020. Understanding the confounding effect of fluency in divergent thinking scores: Revisiting average scores to quantify artifactual correlation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 14: 94–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forthmann, Boris, Dorota M. Jankowska, and Maciej Karwowski. 2021. How reliable and valid are frequency-based originality scores? Evidence from a sample of children and adolescents. Thinking Skills and Creativity 41: 100851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gärdenfors, Peter. 2014. The Geometry of Meaning: Semantics Based on Conceptual Spaces. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- George, Tim, and Jennifer Wiley. 2019. Fixation, flexibility, and forgetting during alternate uses tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 13: 305–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, Tim, and Jennifer Wiley. 2020. Need something different? Here’s what’s been done: Effects of examples and task instructions on creative idea generation. Memory and Cognition 48: 226–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, Tim, Jennifer Wiley, Rebecca H. Koppel, and Benjamin C. Storm. 2019. Constraining or constructive? The effects of examples on idea novelty. The Journal of Creative Behavior 53: 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilhooly, Ken J., Evridiki Fioratou, Susan H. Anthony, and Val Wynn. 2007. Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology 98: 611–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guilford, Joy P., Paul R. Christensen, Philip R. Merrifield, and Robert C. Wilson. 1978. Alternate Uses: Manual of Instructions and Interpretations. Orange: Sheridan Psychological Services. [Google Scholar]
- Han, Wei, Xue Feng, Mi Zhang, Kaiping Peng, and Dan Zhang. 2019. Mood states and everyday creativity: Employing an experience sampling method and a day reconstruction method. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrington, David M. 1975. Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality 43: 434–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hass, Richard W. 2017. Tracking the dynamics of divergent thinking via semantic distance: Analytic methods and theoretical implications. Memory and Cognition 45: 233–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hattori, Masasi, Steven A. Sloman, and Ryo Orita. 2013. Effects of subliminal hints on insight problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 20: 790–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hughes, David, Adrian Furnham, and Mark Batey. 2013. The structure and personality predictors of self-rated creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity 9: 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansson, David G., and Steven M. Smith. 1991. Design fixation. Design Studies 12: 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johns, Gregg A., and Linda W. Morse. 1997. Divergent thinking as a function of time and prompting to “be creative” in undergraduates. The Journal of Creative Behavior 31: 156–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johns, Gregg A., Linda W. Morse, and David T. Morse. 2000. Divergent production in gifted adolescents using timed vs. untimed stimuli with creative prompting. Roeper Review 22: 165–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, Steven. 2002. Antonymy: A Corpus-Based Study. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, Steven. 2007. ‘Opposites’ in discourse: A comparison of antonym use across four domains. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1105–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kan, Irene P., Susan E. Teubner-Rhodes, Anna B. Drummey, Lauren Nutile, Lauren Krupa, and J. Jared Novick. 2013. To adapt or not to adapt: The question of domain-general cognitive control. Cognition 129: 637–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katona, George. 1940. Organizing and Memorizing: Studies in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kaufman, James C., Ronald A. Beghetto, and Cody Watson. 2016. Creative metacognition and self-ratings of creative performance: A 4-C perspective. Learning and Individual Differences 51: 394–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khatena, Joe. 1972. Original verbal images of children as a function of time. Psychological Reports 31: 565–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khatena, Joe. 1973. Production of original verbal images by college adults to variable time intervals. Perceptual and Motor Skills 36: 1285–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kohn, Nicholas W., and Steven M. Smith. 2011. Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology 25: 359–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laukkonen, Ruben E., and Jason M. Tangen. 2017. Can observing a Necker cube make you more insightful? Consciousness and Cognition 48: 198–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Laukkonen, Ruben, and Jason Tangen. 2018. How to detect insight moments in problem solving experiments. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Levine, Marvin. 1988. Effective Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
- Maier, Norman R. F. 1931. Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 12: 181–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, Lee, and Nick Wilson. 2017. Defining creativity with discovery. Creativity Research Journal 29: 417–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCrae, Robert R. 1987. Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 1258–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medeiros, Kelsey E., Paul J. Partlow, and Michael D. Mumford. 2014. Not too much, not too little: The influence of constraints on creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8: 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miroshnik, Kirill G., and Olga V. Shcherbakova. 2019. The proportion and creativity of “old” and “new” ideas: Are they related to fluid intelligence? Intelligence 76: 101384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreau, C. Page, and Darren W. Dahl. 2005. Designing the Solution: The impact of Constraints on Consumers’ Creativity. Journal of Consumer Research 32: 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moroshkina, Nadezhda, Alina Savina, Artur Ammalainen, Valeria Gershkovich, Ilija Zverev, and Olga Lvova. 2022. How Difficult Was It? Metacognitive Judgments About Problems and Their Solutions After the Aha Moment. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 911904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morse, David T., Linda W. Morse, and Gregg A. Johns. 2001. Do time press, stimulus, and creative prompt influence the divergent production of undergraduate students? Yes, yes, and no, not very much. The Journal of Creative Behavior 35: 102–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonyms, Synonyms and Other Semantic Paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Murray, M. Aisling, and Ruth M. J. Byrne. 2013. Cognitive change in insight problem solving: Initial model errors and counterexamples. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25: 210–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nusbaum, Emily C., and Paul J. Silvia. 2011. Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence 39: 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nusbaum, Emily C., Paul J. Silvia, and Roger E. Beaty. 2014. Ready, set, create: What instructing people to “be creative” reveals about the meaning and mechanisms of divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8: 423–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Öllinger, Michael, Gary Jones, Amory H. Faber, and Günther Knoblich. 2013. Cognitive mechanisms of insight: The role of heuristics and representational change in solving the eight-coin problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39: 931–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Öllinger, Michael, Gary Jones, and Günther Knoblich. 2014. The dynamics of search, impasse, and representational change provide a coherent explanation of difficulty in the nine-dot problem. Psychological Research 78: 266–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olszewska, Aangelika, and Agata Sobkow. 2021. Can observing a Necker cube (really) make you more insightful? The evidence from objective and subjective indicators of insight. Polish Psychological Bulletin 52: 311–21. [Google Scholar]
- Olteţeanu, Ana-Maria, Mikkel Schöttner, and Arpit Bahety. 2019. Towards a multi-level exploration of human and computational re-representation in unified cognitive frameworks. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osborn, Alex F. 1963. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking, 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Paek, Sue Hyeon, Ahmed M. Abdulla Alabbasi, Selcuk Acar, and Mark A. Runco. 2021. Is more time better for divergent thinking? A meta-analysis of the time-on-task effect on divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity 41: 100894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmiero, Massimiliano, Chie Nakatani, Daniel Raver, Marta Olivetti Belardinelli, and Cees van Leeuwen. 2010. Abilities within and across visual and verbal domains: How specific is their influence on creativity? Creativity Research Journal 22: 369–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parnes, Sidney J. 1961. Effects of extended effort in creative problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology 52: 117–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patrick, John, Afia Ahmed, Victoria Smy, Helen Seeby, and Katie Sambrooks. 2015. A cognitive procedure or representation change in verbal insight problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 41: 746–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patrick, John, and Afia Ahmed. 2014. Facilitating representation change in insight problems through training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 40: 532–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pétervári, Judith, and Amory Danek. 2019. Problem solving of magic tricks: Guiding to and through an impasse with solution cues. Thinking & Reasoning 26: 502–33. [Google Scholar]
- Plucker, Jonathan A. 1999. Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal 12: 103–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poletiek, Fenna H. 1996. Paradoxes of falsification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49: 447–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purcell, A. Terry, and John S. Gero. 1996. Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies 17: 363–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafetseder, Eva, Renate Cristi-Vargas, and Josef Perner. 2010. Counterfactual reasoning: Developing a sense of “nearest possible world”. Child Development 81: 376–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasulzada, Farida, and Ingrid Dackert. 2009. Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to psychological well-being and organizational factors. Creativity Research Journal 21: 191–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinartz, Werner, and Peter Saffert. 2013. Creativity in advertising: When it works and when it doesn’t. Harvard Business Review 91: 106–11. [Google Scholar]
- Reinig, Bruce A., and Robert O. Briggs. 2008. On the relationship between idea-quantity and idea-quality during ideation. Group Decision and Negotiation 17: 403–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richards, Ruth. 2007. Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature: Psychological, Social, and Spiritual Perspectives. Edited by Ruth Richards. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 25–53. [Google Scholar]
- Richards, Ruth. 2010. Everyday creativity: Process and way of life—Four key issues. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Edited by James C. Kaufman and Robert J. Sternberg. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–215. [Google Scholar]
- Rietzschel, Erick F., J. Marjette Slijkhuis, and Nico W. Van Yperen. 2014. Task structure, need for structure, and creativity. European Journal of Social Psychology 44: 386–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riquelme, Hernan. 2002. Can people creative in imagery interpret ambiguous figures faster than people less creative in imagery? The Journal of Creative Behavior 36: 105–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roskes, Marieke, Andrew J. Elliot, Bernard A. Nijstad, and Carsten K. W. De Dreu. 2013. Time pressure undermines performance more under avoidance than approach motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39: 803–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosso, Brent D. 2014. Creativity and Constraints: Exploring the Role of Constraints in the Creative Processes of Research and Development Teams. Organization Studies 35: 551–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothenberg, Albert. 1973a. Word association and creativity. Psychological Reports 33: 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothenberg, Albert. 1973b. Opposite responding as a measure of creativity. Psychological Reports 33: 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothenberg, Albert. 1983. Janusian Process and Scientific Creativity. Contemporary Psychoanalysis 19: 100–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runco, Mark A., and Garrett Jaeger. 2012. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24: 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runco, Mark A., and Selcuk Acar. 2012. Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal 24: 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runco, Mark A., Garnet Millar, Selcuk Acar, and Bonnie Cramond. 2010. Torrance tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal 22: 361–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runco, Mark A., Jody J. Illies, and Roni Reiter-Ralmon. 2005. Explicit Instructions to Be Creative and Original. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving 15: 5–15. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2001. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 141–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Said-Metwaly, Sameh, Belén Fernández-Castilla, Eva Kyndt, and Wim Van den Noortgate. 2020. Testing conditions and creative performance: Meta-analyses of the impact of time limits and instructions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 14: 15–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Said-Metwaly, Sameh, Wim Van den Noortgate, and Eva Kyndt. 2017. Approaches to measuring creativity: A systematic literature review. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications 4: 238–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajjadi-Bafhgi, Seyed Hossein, and Joe Khatena. 1985. Effects of autonomy of imagery and time press on production of verbal originality. Perceptual and Motor Skills 61: 787–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajjadi-Bafhgi, Seyed Hossein. 1986. Fixed and variable time press and sex differences in production of verbal originality. Perceptual and Motor Skills 63: 1011–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sellier, Anne-Laure, and Darren W. Dahl. 2011. Focus! Creative Success Is Enjoyed Through Restricted Choice. Journal of Marketing Research 48: 996–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Wangbing, Meifeng Hua, Meijiao Wang, and Yuan Yuan. 2020. The mental welfare effect of creativity: How does creativity make people happy? Psychology, Health and Medicine 26: 1045–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Wangbing, Yuan Yuan, Chang Liu, and Jing Luo. 2016. In search of the ‘Aha!’ experience: Elucidating the emotionality of insight problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology 107: 281–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shin, Hyelim, Katherine N. Cotter, Alexander P. Christensen, and Paul J. Silvia. 2020. Creative fixation is no laughing matter: The effects of funny and unfunny examples on humor production. The Journal of Creative Behavior 54: 487–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvia, Paul J., Katherine N. Cotter, and Alexander P. Christensen. 2017. The creative self in context: Experience sampling and the ecology of everyday creativity. In The Creative Self: Effect of Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, Mindset, and Identity. Edited by Maciej Karwowski and James C. Kaufman. Cambridge: Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 275–88. [Google Scholar]
- Silvia, Paul J., Roger E. Beaty, Emily C. Nusbaum, Kari M. Eddington, Holly Levin-Aspenson, and Thomas R. Kwapil. 2014. Everyday creativity in daily life: An experience-sampling study of “little c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8: 183–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonton, Dean K. 2010. Creative thought as blind-variation and selective retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews 7: 156–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sio, Ut Na, Kenneth Kotovsky, and Jonathan Cagan. 2015. Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design processes. Design Studies 39: 70–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirois, Fuschia M., Jennifer Monforton, and Melissa Simpson. 2010. “If only I had done better”: Perfectionism and the functionality of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36: 1675–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Steven M., Tony Ward, and Jay Schumacher. 1993. Constraining effects of examples in creative generation task. Memory and Cognition 21: 837–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spiridonov, Vladimir, Nikita Loginov, and Vladlen Ardislamov. 2021. Dissociation between the subjective experience of insight and performance in the CRA paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 33: 685–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stacey, Martin, and Claudia Eckert. 2010. Reshaping the box: Creative designing as constraint management. International Journal of Product Development 11: 241–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sternberg, Robert J. 2006. The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 18: 87–98. [Google Scholar]
- Stokes, Patricia D. 2005. Creativity from Constraints: The Psychology of Breakthrough. New York: Springer Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- Stoycheva, Katya. 2010. Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology 1–4: 178–88. [Google Scholar]
- To, March L., Cynthia D. Fisher, Neal M. Ashkanasy, and Patricia A. Rowe. 2012. Within-person relationships between mood and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology 97: 599–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tromp, Catrinel, and Robert J. Sternberg. 2022. How constraints impact creativity: An interaction paradigm. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tromp, Catrinel. 2022a. Integrated constraints in creativity: Foundations for a unifying model. Review of General Psychology 27: 41–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tromp, Catrinel. 2022b. Creativity from Constraint Exploration and Exploitation. Psychological Reports, Online First. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyser, Maurissa P., Sean M. McCrea, and Kristin Knüpfer. 2012. Pursuing perfection or pursuing protection? Self-evaluation concerns and the motivational consequences of counterfactual thinking. European Journal of Social Psychology 42: 372–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulger, Kani. 2015. The structure of creative thinking: Visual and verbal areas. Creativity Research Journal 27: 102–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vannucci, Manila, and Sergio Agnoli. 2019. Thought Dynamics: Which Role for Mind Wandering in Creativity? In Dynamic Perspectives on Creativity. Creativity Theory and Action in Education. Edited by Ronald A. Beghetto and Giovanni Emanuele Corazzan. Singapore: Springer, vol. 4, pp. 245–60. [Google Scholar]
- Walinga, Jennifer, J. Barton Cunningham, and James N. MacGregor. 2011. Training insight problem solving through focus on barriers and assumptions. The Journal of Creative Behavior 45: 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallach, Michael, and Nathan Kogan. 1965. A new look at the creativity-intelligence distinction. Journal of Personality 33: 348–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weisberg, Robert W. 2006. Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts. Hoboken: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Wertheimer, Max. 1945. Productive Thinking. New York and Evanston: Harper & Row Publishers, First publish 1920. [Google Scholar]
- Wilken, Andrea, Boris Forthmann, and Heinz Holling. 2020. Instructions moderate the relationship between creative performance in figural divergent thinking and reasoning capacity. The Journal of creative behavior 54: 582–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiseman, Richard, Caroline Watt, Kenneth Gilhooly, and George Georgiou. 2011. Creativity and ease of ambiguous figural reversal. British Journal of Psychology 102: 615–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, Xiaofei, Xiaojing Gu, and Hao Zhang. 2016. The Facilitative Effects of Ambiguous Figures on Creative Solution. The Journal of Creative Behavior 1: 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wynne, Ronald D., Herbert Gerjuoy, and Harold Schiffman. 1964. Associative test antonym response set. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviors 4: 354–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yagolkovskiy, Sergey R., and Anatoliy V. Kharkhurin. 2016. The roles of rarity and organization of stimulus material in divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity 22: 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Haichao, Dahui Li, and Wenhua Hou. 2011. Task Design, Motivation, and Participation in Crowdsourcing Contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 15: 57–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zingales, Mario. 1974. L’organizzazione della creatività [The Organization of Creativity]. Bologna: Cappelli. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bianchi, I.; Branchini, E. Does Thinking in Opposites in Order to Think Differently Improve Creativity? J. Intell. 2023, 11, 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11050085
Bianchi I, Branchini E. Does Thinking in Opposites in Order to Think Differently Improve Creativity? Journal of Intelligence. 2023; 11(5):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11050085
Chicago/Turabian StyleBianchi, Ivana, and Erika Branchini. 2023. "Does Thinking in Opposites in Order to Think Differently Improve Creativity?" Journal of Intelligence 11, no. 5: 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11050085