Early and Repeated Exposure to Examples Improves Creative Work

  • Chinmay Kulkarni
  • Steven P. Dow
  • Scott R Klemmer
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

This article presents the results of an online creativity experiment (N = 81) that examines the effect of example timing on creative output. In the between-subjects experiment, participants drew animals to inhabit an alien Earth-like planet while being exposed to examples early, late, or repeatedly during the experiment. We find that exposure to examples increases conformity. Early exposure to examples improves creativity (measured by the number of common and novel features in drawings, and subjective ratings by independent raters). Repeated exposure to examples interspersed with prototyping leads to even better results. However, late exposure to examples increases conformity, but does not improve creativity.

References

  1. Baayen R, Davidson D, Bates D (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59(4):390–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boroditsky L (2007) Comparison and the development of knowledge. Cognition 102(1):118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buxton B, Buxton W (2007) Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Deng J, Dong W, Socher R, Li L, Li K, Fei-Fei L (2009) Imagenet: a large-scale hierarchical image database. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR 2009). IEEE conference on, Miami, Florida, USA, pp 248–255Google Scholar
  5. Dow S, Fortuna J, Schwartz D, Altringer B, Schwartz D, Klemmer S (2011) Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results. In: Proceedings of CHI: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 2807–2816Google Scholar
  6. Gentner D, Colhoun J (2010) Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. Towards a theory of thinking, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 35–48Google Scholar
  7. Heer J, Bostock M (2010) Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. In: Proceedings of CHI: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 203–212Google Scholar
  8. Heit E (1992) Categorization using chains of examples. Cogn Psychol 24(3):341–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herring S, Chang C, Krantzler J, Bailey B (2009) Getting inspired!: understanding how and why examples are used in creative design practice. In: Proceedings of CHI: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 87–96Google Scholar
  10. Jansson D, Smith S (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerne A, Koh E, Smith S, Webb A, Dworaczyk B (2008) Combinformation: mixed-initiative composition of image and text surrogates promotes information discovery. ACM Trans Inform Syst (TOIS) 27(1):5Google Scholar
  12. Kim H, Hinds P (2012) Harmony vs. disruption: the effect of iterative prototyping on teams creative processes and outcomes in the west and the east. In: Proceedings ICIC: international conference on intercultural collaboration. ACMGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee B, Srivastava S, Kumar R, Brafman R, Klemmer S (2010) Designing with interactive example galleries. In: Proceedings of CHI: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 2257–2266Google Scholar
  14. Lewis S, Dontcheva M, Gerber E (2011) Affective computational priming and creativity. In: Proceedings of CHI: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 735–744Google Scholar
  15. Lim Y, Stolterman E, Tenenberg J (2008) The anatomy of prototypes: prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans Comput- Hum Interact (TOCHI) 15(2):7Google Scholar
  16. Marsh R, Bower G (1993) Eliciting cryptomnesia: unconscious plagiarism in a puzzle task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 19(3):673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marsh R, Landau J, Hicks J (1996) How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity. Mem Cognit 24(5):669–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newman M, Landay J (2000) Sitemaps, storyboards, and specifications: a sketch of web site design practice. In: Proceedings of DIS: ACM conference on designing interactive systems, pp 263–274Google Scholar
  19. Ritchie D, Kejriwal A, Klemmer S (2011) d. tour: style-based exploration of design example galleries. In: Proceedings of UIST: ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, pp 165–174Google Scholar
  20. Schön D (1985) The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials. RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Smith S, Ward T, Schumacher J (1993) Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Mem Cognit 21(6):837–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Snow R, O’Connor B, Jurafsky D, Ng A (2008) Cheap and fast – but is it good?: evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 254–263Google Scholar
  23. Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des Stud 18(4):385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ward T (1994) Structured imagination: the role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cogn Psychol 27(1):1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weisberg R (1999) Creativity and knowledge: a challenge to theories. In: Sternberg R (ed) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 226Google Scholar
  26. Yu L, Nickerson J (2011) Cooks or cobblers?: crowd creativity through combination. In: Proceedings of CHI: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1393–1402Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chinmay Kulkarni
    • 1
  • Steven P. Dow
    • 2
  • Scott R Klemmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford University HCI GroupStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon, HCI InstitutePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations