Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 669–680 | Cite as

How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity

  • Richard L. MarshEmail author
  • Joshua D. Landau
  • Jason L. Hicks
Article

Abstract

Three experiments were performed to test Smith, Ward, and Schumacher’s (1993) conformity hypothesis— that people’s ideas will conform to examples they are shown in a creative generation task. Conformity was observed in all three experiments; participants tended to incorporate critical features of experimenter-provided examples. However, examination of total output, elaborateness of design, and the noncritical features did not confirm that the conformity effect constrained creative output in any of the three experiments. Increasing the number of examples increased the conformity effect (Experiment 1). Examples that covaried features that are naturally uncorrelated in the real world led to a greater subjective rating of creativity (Experiment 2). A delay between presentation and test increased conformity (Experiment 3), just as models of inadvertent plagiarism would predict. The explanatory power of theoretical accounts such as activation, retrieval blocking, structured imagination, and category abstraction are evaluated.

Keywords

Critical Feature Category Learning Artificial Condition Conformity Effect Uncommon Feature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ]Bassili, J. N., Smith, M. C., &MacLeod, C. M. (1989). Auditory and visual word-stem completion: Separating data-driven and conceptually driven processes.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 439–453.Google Scholar
  2. ]Battig, W. F., &Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut Category Norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology,80(3, Pt. 2), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boden, M. (1991).The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. ]Brown, A. S., &Halliday, H. E. (1991). Cryptomnesia and source memory difficulties.American Journal of Psychology,104, 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ]Brown, A. S., &Murphy, D. R. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ]Clapper, J. P., &Bower, G. H. (1994). Category invention in unsupervised learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., &Smith, S. M. (1992).Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. ]Gick, M. L., &Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving.Cognitive Psychology,12, 306–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ]Heit, E. (1992). Categorization using chains of examples.Cognitive Psychology,24, 341–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ]Heit, E. (1994). Models of the effects of prior knowledge on category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1264–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ]Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., Brown, J., &Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influence of the past.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,56, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ]Jansson, D. G., &Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation.Design Studies,12, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ]Lewicki, P., Hill, T., &Czyzewska, M. (1992). Nonconscious acquisition of information.American Psychologist,47, 796–801.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. ]Marsh, R. L., &Bower, G. H. (1993). Eliciting cryptomnesia: Unconscious plagiarism in a puzzle task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ]Marsh, R. L., &Landau, J. D. (1995). Availability in cryptomnesia: Assessing its role in two paradigms of unconscious plagiarism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1568–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ]Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process.Psychological Review,69, 220–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. ]Murphy, G. L., &Allopenna, P. D. (1994). The locus of knowledge effects in concept learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 904–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy, G. L., &Wisniewski, E. J. (1989). Feature correlations in conceptual representations. In I. G. Tiberghien (Ed.),Advances in cognitive science: Vol. 2. Theory and applications (pp. 23–45). Chichester, U.K.: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  19. ]Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ]Roediger, H. L., III (1974). Inhibiting effects of recall.Memory & Cognition,2, 261–269.Google Scholar
  21. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 28–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. ]Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 629–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ]Ross, B. H., Ryan, W. J., &Tenpenny, P. L. (1989). The access of relevant information for solving problems.Memory & Cognition,17, 639–651.Google Scholar
  24. ]Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences and pictures.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,6, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, S. M. (1995). Fixation, incubation, and insight in memory and creative thinking. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.),The creative cognition approach (pp. 135–156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. ]Smith, S. M., Balfour, S. P., &Brown, J. M. (1994). Effects of practice on TOT states.Memory,2, 31–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. ]Smith, S. M., &Blankenship, S. E. (1989). Incubation effects.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,27, 311–314.Google Scholar
  28. ]Smith, S. M., &Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving.American Journal of Psychology,104, 61–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. ]Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., &Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task.Memory & Cognition,21, 837–845.Google Scholar
  30. ]Spalding, T. L., &Ross, B. H. (1994). Comparison-based learning: Effects of comparing instances during category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1251–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Torrence, E. P. (1974).The Torrence tests of creative thinking: Norms-Technical manual. Bensonville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  32. ]Tversky, B., &Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ]Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation.Cognitive Psychology,27, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ward, T. B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas? In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.),The creative cognition approach (pp. 157–178). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Marsh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joshua D. Landau
    • 1
  • Jason L. Hicks
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthens

Personalised recommendations