Docstoc

Manufacturing the Solution The Role of Constraints in Consumer .ppt

Document Sample
Manufacturing the Solution The Role of Constraints in Consumer .ppt Powered By Docstoc
					The Influence of Constraints on
Consumer Creativity


    Page Moreau
    PhD Proseminar
    September 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 Handle
                                                 3-D Cube
  3-D Half Sphere              3-D Sphere




                    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
                                                            3-D “U” Shape




   Flat Square         Pyramid                                              Thin Pole
                                            Flat Narrow Cross
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
                                                          1.5

                                                                                                            1.34
    The Extent of Generative and Exploratory Processing




                                                            1




                                                          0.5




                                                            0
                                                                 they choose                           we choose
                                                                                                            -0.16


                                                                  -0.53
                                                          -0.5

                                                                      -0.58



                                                           -1

                                                                               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
                                                      1.5

                                                                                                         1.34




                                                         1
The Extent of Generative and Exploratory Processing




                                                      0.5




                                                         0
                                                             they choose                           we choose
                                                                                                         -0.16


                                                               -0.53
                                                      -0.5

                                                                   -0.58




                                                        -1

                                                                           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
                                   2




                                 1.5                                                 1.46




                                   1
 Extent of Creative Processing




                                        0.67

                                 0.5




                                   0
                                          they choose                           we choose



                                 -0.5



                                                                                     -0.85
                                  -1



                                        -1.32
                                 -1.5

                                                        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 just
moved into the area to take a new job. It is the annual company
banquet held by your new employer…and you are going to be called up
front to be introduced by your new boss. You put on a black outfit and
think you are ready for the dinner when you discover your new shoes
are all scuffed up and the scuffs are definitely noticeable. You then
discover that you are out of shoe polish.

This is the only pair of shoes you have to go with this outfit and there is
really 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 the
stores are closed in your part of town for the evening. The mall is open
but 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
                                 1.5




                                   1                                                           1.01
 Extent of Creative Processing




                                 0.5




                                   0
                                         they choose                                    we choose     -0.06

                                        -0.31


                                 -0.5
                                                -0.60




                                  -1

                                                       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 Bees
                  Beautifully 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 Mold
                  KCM 006
                  $65.00
                   Marzipan Bees
                  KSS 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

                 Competence
                                          Inexperienced Bakers                                                                        Experienced Bakers


             4                                                                                           4


             3                                                                                           3                                                                     2.91

             2       1.78                                                                                2       1.78
                                                                                                                 1.68
             1                                                                                           1


             0                                                                                           0                                                                      -0.16




                                                                                            Competence
Competence




                    No Instructions                                          Instructions                     No Instructions                                           Instructions
             -1                                                                     -0.64                -1


             -2                                                                                          -2
                                                                                    -2.29

             -3                                                                                          -3

                                                                                                         -4
             -4

                                                                                                         -5
             -5
                    -4.97
                                                                                                         -6
             -6
                                                                                                                        No Solution Representation         Solution Representation
                               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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:10/24/2012
language:English
pages:53
tongxiamy tongxiamy http://
About