Is it better to ‘think outside the box’ to get a good idea? Research suggests no.

Last week there the World Creativy Forum was held in Kortrijk, close to the infamous Flanders Fields. One of the keynotes was telling how we live in boxes, drive in new boxes to our work, also in boxes. And than we are asked to think outside the box?

Well, maybe I’ve got good news for you. When looking at the question if it is better to ‘think outside the box,’ or to build on something more closely related to the problem one is trying to solve, researchers have collected surprising evidence that nearer is better.

In summary:

 

  • Design ideas that cite sources of inspiration are more creative.
  • Conceptual distance of complex design sources can be machine-scored reliably.
  • Conceptually closer rather than farther sources lead to more creative ideas.

And the researchers findings are robust across multiple design problems!

 

From the press release:

In a paper newly published in Design Studies, recent University of Pittsburgh graduate Joel Chan and his mentor Christian Schunn of Pitt’s Learning Research and Development Center, along with Carnegie Mellon University’s Steven Dow, have collected surprising evidence that nearer is better.

“For people needing fresh inspiration for a problem, these findings imply that you shouldn’t just go off and talk to random people or read things totally unrelated to your problem,” says Chan, the lead author, who earned his PhD from Pitt this summer and is now a postdoctoral fellow in Carnegie Mellon’s Human-Computer Interaction Institute. “These might yield novel ideas, but not necessarily … useful and novel ideas.”

Chan and Schunn, professor of psychology and senior scientist at Pitt’s Learning Research and Development Center, collected data through OpenIDEO, a web-based crowdsourced innovation platform intended to help people address a wide range of social and environmental problems like human rights violations and job growth for youth.

The team began collecting data from OpenIDEO’s “inspiration phase,” during which individuals posted descriptions of solutions to problems similar to those posited by new solution seekers. Subsequent to the “inspiration phase,” contributors moved on to posting more concrete, increasingly detailed solutions to the specific problem at hand. Then, OpenIDEO experts created a shortlist of what they saw to be viable creative solutions to the problem. The process took up to 10 weeks. Other similar studies, Chan says, have looked at the creative process over a much shorter period of time. Also, he adds, “in our study we had more than 350 participants and thousands of ideas. Creativity studies typically have many participants solve ‘toy’ problems or observe few participants solving real problems — in our study we had both, lending greater strength to our conclusions.”

The team collected its data at the conclusion of the OpenIDEO process. They then entered it into an algorithm to determine whether an idea was near to or far from the posted problem. This algorithm was first vetted against human judgments and proved to be quite good at determining idea distance. Then, the outcomes of the model proved adept at predicting the OpenIDEO experts’ shortlist and found that the vast majority of ideas that made the list were closely related to the posted problem, Schunn says.

“Instead of seeing a bigger effect of far inspirations,” Chan says, “I saw that ideas built on source ideas more closely related to the problem tended to be selected more often. And I saw the same pattern across 12 very different problems — ranging from preventing human rights violations to fostering greater connectedness in urban communities to improving employment prospects for young people.”

Schunn adds that “we chose to look at a variety of problems to find out if there is a consistent pattern, and there is. And we can use this algorithm as a tool for a variety of problems, to identify the ideas that are ‘close’ and direct people to look at them.”

In short, Chan says, “My overall theory is that creative ideas more often come from accumulating many small insights, stretching the boundaries just a bit at a time.”

Abstract of the research:

Design ideas often come from sources of inspiration (e.g., analogous designs, prior experiences). In this paper, we test the popular but unevenly supported hypothesis that conceptually distant sources of inspiration provide the best insights for creative production. Through text analysis of hundreds of design concepts across a dozen different design challenges on a Web-based innovation platform that tracks connections to sources of inspiration, we find that citing sources is associated with greater creativity of ideas, but conceptually closer rather than farther sources appear more beneficial. This inverse relationship between conceptual distance and design creativity is robust across different design problems on the platform. In light of these findings, we revisit theories of design inspiration and creative cognition.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Myths, Research

One response to “Is it better to ‘think outside the box’ to get a good idea? Research suggests no.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s