1. The Influence of Constraints on Consumer Creativity Page Moreau PhD Proseminar September 17, 2004

2. Constraints & Consumer Creativity Budgetary Constraint  ($1,000 per house) Time Constraint  (2 days)

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Constraints and the POLR Constraints  Input Restrictions In-Stock (Acquisition Costs) Monetary (Budgetary Constraints)

11. Input Constraints and the POLR

12. Constraints and the POLR Constraints  Input Restrictions In-Stock (Acquisition Costs) Monetary (Budgetary Constraints)  Input Requirements Regulatory  Time

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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)

16. Shapes

18. 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

19. Study 1

20. 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

21. 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)

22. Study 1 Results Creative Processes

23. 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)

24. 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?

25. 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.

26. H3 Prediction 1.34 -0.16 -0.53 -0.58 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 they choosewe choose The Extent of Generative and Exploratory Processing use as manyuse all

27. 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).

28. 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)

29. Study 2 Results – Creative Processing

30. 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)

31. 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

32. 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:

33. “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?

34. 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.

35. 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 )

36. 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)

37. Study 3 Results – Creative Processing

38. 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)

39. Study 3 Discussion Summary  Input constraints, when combined with sufficient time, facilitate creative processes

40. Future Research: Additional Types of Constraints Outcome  The Creation vs. the Realization of the Solution Representation

41. 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

42. Future Research: Additional Types of Constraints Outcome  The Creation of the Solution Representation Process Experience Knowledge Intelligence

43. 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.”

44. 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)

46. 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)

47. The Cookie Study Procedure

48. The Cookie Study

49. Procedure Dependent Measures  Autonomy  Competence  Task Enjoyment

50. 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:

51. Results – The Cookie Study Competence

52. 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

53. Conclusion Directions for Future Research