Creativity Comes from Interaction
We explored how three people communicate verbally (i.e. chatting, discussion) and nonverbally (i.e. gazes, gestures) in creating a Lego(R) castle collaboratively. We also investigated how such communication behaviors can be cues for a “better” and “more creative” castle. In Experiment 1, we asked a total of 30 students (3 people \(\times \) 10 groups) to construct a castle fully in collaboration with the group members. In Experiment 2, we asked the other 27 students to assess the quality (“how good the castle is”) and creativeness (“how creative the castle is”) for the photographed castles. The verbal, gestural, and gazing behaviors of the creators were analyzed quantitatively. We conducted path analyses to identify parameters determining the quality and the creativeness, showing that the degree of communication behaviors was reflected in the evaluation of the created castle. In detail, the quality was enhanced by looking at the other group members as well as by discussing the content of the castle. The creativeness was determined by the degree of chatting and representational gestures. These results suggest the communication process in multiple-agent creation: Rapport can be constructed efficiently by chatting with the other members; creators can share divergent ideas; and they can construct a creative object.
KeywordsCommunication Creativity Multiple-agent interaction Multi-modal analysis Lego(R)
The contents of this study are based on the second author’s master thesis. We also thank Tomoki Yao for checking the validity of our measurements, and Haru Nitta, Kana Shirai, Yu Oshima, and the members at Sakata Lab, Doshisha University for their valuable input for this study.
- 1.Amabile, T.M.: A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 10(1), 123–167 (1988)Google Scholar
- 2.Bono, M., Takanashi, K.: Analytical Methodology of Multi-party Interaction. Ohmsha, Tokyo (2009). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 3.Caune, J.: Esthétique de la communication. Presses universitaires de France (1997)Google Scholar
- 4.Enomoto, M., Den, Y.: Will the participant gazed at by the current speaker be the next speaker? Japan. J. Lang. Soc. 14(1), 97–109 (2011). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 5.Goffman, E.: Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia (1981)Google Scholar
- 6.Guilford, J.P., Hoepfner, R.: The Analysis of Intelligence. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York (1971)Google Scholar
- 8.Matsuda, M., Matsushita, M., Naemura, T.: Group task achievement under a social distributed cognitive environment: an effect of closeness between groups. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 90(4), 1043–1054 (2007). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 9.McGraw, J.J., Wallot, S., Mitkidis, P., Roepstorff, A.: Culture’s building blocks: investigating cultural evolution in a Lego construction task. Front. Psychol. 5(1017), 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
- 10.McNeill, D.: Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1992)Google Scholar
- 13.Suzuki, N., Kamiya, T., Umata, I., Iwasawa, S., Ito, S.: Verbal and nonverbal behaviors in multi-party collaboration: third-party evaluation to leadership. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 41–44 (2011) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 16.Toyoda, H.: Covariance Structure Analysis (Amos version): Structural Equation Modeling. Tokyo Tosho, Tokyo (2007). (in Japanese)Google Scholar