Cognitive Antifreeze: The Visual Inception of Fluid Sociomaterial Interactions for Knowledge Creation

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 11)

Abstract

This pilot study investigates the idea generation process of ad-hoc pairs using external visualisations for divergent thought. The study’s objective is to examine if pairs’ perceived possibility to change the external visualisations of their ideas affects how deeply they explore cognitive categories. The depth of cognitive category exploration is known as cognitive persistence. A 2 x 2 factorial experiment with active middle to upper level management participants was employed. The experiment operationalised the perceived changeability, or fluidity, of visual objects through manipulation of pairs’ worksheet template and writing instruments. For the writing instrument, pencils operationalised high perceived changeability, and pens operationalised low perceived changeability. For the worksheet template, blank sheets operationalised high perceived changeability, and pre-printed mindmaps operationalised low perceived changeability. The results indicate that a sociomaterial interaction impacts upon participants’ cognitive persistence. This study finds that cognitive persistence is highest amongst pairs using a consistently high perceived changeability pencil/blank worksheet combination. Conversely pairs using a high perceived changeability pencil with a low perceived changeability pre-printed mindmap display the lowest cognitive persistence. The materials pairs note ideas with together influence their need to seize upon an idea. Such seizure reduces cognitive persistence. Fluid visual representations function as an effective cognitive antifreeze.

Keywords

Creativity Dyad Visualisation Perceived finishedness Cognitive persistence 

References

  1. 1.
    Nonaka, I.: The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Bus. Rev. 69(6), 96–104 (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGrath, R.G.: The end of competitive advantage: How to keep your strategy moving as fast as your business. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dew, R., Hearn, G.: A new model of the learning process for innovation teams: Networked nominal pairs. Int. J. Inno. Mgmt. 13(04), 521–535 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van de Ven, A., Delbecq, A.L.: Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Acad. Mgmt. J. 14(2), 203–213 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGrath, L.A.: When pairing reduces scaring: The effect of dyadic ideation on evaluation apprehension. Int. J. Inno. Mgmt. (2015) (In Print)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, D., Whitmyre, J.W., Funk, W.H.: Effect of group cohesiveness and training upon creative thinking. J. App. Psych. 44(5), 319–322 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Janis, I.L.: Groupthink. Psych. Today 5(6), 43–46 (1971)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janis, I.L.: Groupthink, 2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1982)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pape, T., Bölle, I.: Einfallsproduktion von Individuen und Dyaden unter “Brainstorming”-Bedingungen: Replikation einer Studie und allgemeine Probleme eines Forschungsgebietes. Psych. Bei. 26, 459–468 (1984). (in German)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torrance, E.P.: The influence of dyadic interaction on creative functioning. Psych. Rep. 26, 391–394 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torrance, E.P.: Stimulation, enjoyment, and originality in dyadic creativity. J. Ed. Psych. 62(1), 46–48 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hausmann, R.G.M.: Why do elaborative dialogs lead to effective problem solving and deep learning? In: 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1465–1469. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Vancouver (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chirumbolo, A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Areni, A., Kruglanski, A.W.: Motivated closed-mindedness and creativity in small groups. Sm. Gr. Res. 36(1), 59–82 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Antonio, C., Livi, S., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A.W.: Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. Euro. J. Pers. 18(4), 265–278 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kruglanski, A.W., Webster, D.M.: Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing”. Psych. Rev. 103(2), 263–283 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Webster, D.M., Kruglanski, A.W.: Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. J. Pers. Soc. Psych. 67(6), 1049–1062 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lunzer, E.A.: The development of formal reasoning: some recent experiments and their implications. In: Frey, K., Lang, M. (eds.) Cognitive processes and science instruction. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore (1973)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, K.H.: Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the torrance tests of creative thinking (TTCT). Crea. Res. J. 18(1), 3–14 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis, G.A.: Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In: Colangelo, N., Davis, G.A. (eds.) Handbook of Gifted Education, pp. 269–281. Viacom, Needham Heights (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lissitz, R.W., Willhoft, J.L.: A methodological study of the Torrance Tests of Creativity. J. Ed. Meas. 22, 1–111 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thagard, P., Stewart, T.C.: The AHA! experience: creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cog. Sci. 35(1), 1–33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nijstad, B., Stroebe, W.: How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Pers. Soc. Psych. Rev. 10(3), 186–213 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guilford, J.P.: The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nemeth, C.J., Ormiston, M.: Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. Euro. J. Soc. Psych. 37(3), 524–535 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gibson, C., Mumford, M.D.: Evaluation, criticism, and creativity: criticism content and effects on creative problem solving. Psych. Aes. Crea. Arts. 7(4), 314–331 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hewing, M.: Merits of collaboration with potential and current users in creative problem-solving. Int. J. Inno. Mgmt. 17(3), 44–71 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kruglanski, A.W., Webster, D.M.: Group members’ reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. Interpers. Rel. Gr. Proc. 61(2), 212–225 (1991)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Webster, D., Richter, L., Kruglanski, A.W.: On leaping to conclusions when feeling tired: Mental fatigue effects on impressional primacy. J. Exp. Soc. Psych. 32, 181–195 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nijstad, B.A., De Dreu, C.K.W., Rietzschel, E.F., Baas, M.: The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. Euro. Rev. Soc. Psych. 21(1), 34–77 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guilford, J.P.: Creative abilities in the arts. Psych. Rev. 64(2), 110–118 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paulus, P.B., Dzindolet, M., Kohn, N.W.: Collaborative creativity—group creativity and team innovation. In: Mumford, M.D. (ed.) Handbook of Organizational Creativity, pp. 327–357. Academic Press, San Diego (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parmiggiani, E., Mikalsen, M.: The facets of sociomateriality: A systematic mapping of emerging concepts and definitions. In: Aanestad, M., Bratteteig, T. (eds.) SCIS 2013, LNBIP, vol. 156, pp. 87–103. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lurie, N.H., Mason, C.H.: Visual representation: Implications for decision making. J. Mktg. 71, 160–177 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wollman, W., Eylon, B., Lawson, A.E.: Acceptance of lack of closure: Is it an index of advanced reasoning? Ch. Dev. 50(3), 656–665 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCormick, B.H., DeFanti, T.A., Brown, M.D.: Visualization in scientific computing. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 7(10), 69 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacucci, G., Wagner, I.: Performative roles of materiality for collective creativity. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity & cognition—C&C ’07, p. 73. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chambers, D., Reisberg, D.: Can mental images be ambiguous? J. Exp. Psych. 11(3), 317–328 (1985)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carlile, P.R.: A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Org. Sci. 13(4), 442–455 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Soc. St. Sci. 19(3), 387–420 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martin, L., Schwartz, D.L.: A pragmatic perspective on visual representation and creative thinking. Vis. St. 29(1), 80–93 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ewenstein, B., Whyte, J.K.: Visual representations as “artefacts of knowing”. Build. Res. Inf. 35(1), 81–89 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Knorr-Cetina, K.: Objectual practice. In: Schatzki, T.R., Cetina, K.K., Von Savigny, E. (eds.) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, pp. 184–197. Routledge, London (2001)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cog. Sci. 11, 65–99 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Suchman, L.: Representing practice in cognitive science. Hu. St. 11(2), 305–325 (1988)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Roschelle, J., Teasley, S.D.: The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In: Roschelle, J., Teasley, S.D. (eds.) Computer supported collaborative learning, pp. 69–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bresciani, S., Blackwell, A., Eppler, M.J.: Choosing Visualisations for Collaborative Work and Meetings: A Guide to Usability Dimensions. Research report, Darwin College (2008)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Theory of Affordances. In: Shaw, R.E., Bransford, J. (eds.) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, pp. 127–143. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ (1977)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bradley, S.: Design Fundamentals: Elements. Attributes & Principles. Vanseo Design, Boulder, CO (2013)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tversky, B.: What do sketches say about thinking? In: 2002 AAAI Spring Symposium Sketch Understanding Workshop, pp. 148–151. IAAA Press, Palo Alto (2002)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pickering, A.: The Mangle of Practice: Time Agency and Science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rheinberger, H.J.: Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford University Press, Redwood City, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Whyte, J.K., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M., Tidd, J.: Visual practices and the objects used in design. Build. Res. Inf. 35(1), 18–27 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Leonardi, P.M., Kallinikos, J.: Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Barad, K.: Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 28(3), 801–831 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Seeber, I., Maier, R., Ceravolo, P., Frati, F.: Tracing the development of ideas in distributed, IT-supported teams during synchronous collaboration. In: Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–16. ECIS, Tel Aviv (2014)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ward, T.B.: Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cog. Psych. 27, 1–40 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Murphy, G.L.: Comprehending complex concepts. Cog. Sci. 12, 529–562 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lewis, C.M., Sycara, K.P.: Reaching informed agreement in multispecialist cooperation. Gr. Dec. Neg. 2(3), 279–299 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Buzan, T.: The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain’s Untapped Potential. Plume, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., Ulrich, K.T.: Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Mgmt. Sci. 56(4), 591–605 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Eppler, M.J.: A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Inf. Vis. 5(3), 202–210 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Eppler, M.J., Pfister, R.: Sketching at work. =mcm institute, St Gallen (2011)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bergman, M.M.: Advances in Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publications, London (2008)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., Stroebe, W.: Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and quality of generated ideas. J. Exp. Soc. Psych. 43, 933–946 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Harvey, S.: Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Acad. Mgmt. Rev. 39(3), 324–343 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Martini, A., Massa, S., Testa, S.: The inextricable intertwining of the firm, the platform and the customer: the case of a social media platform for innovation. In: Proceedings of the XI Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS on Digital Innovation and Inclusive Knowledge in Times of Change—ITAIS 2014. ITAIS, Genoa (2014)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Simonton, D.K.: Foresight in Insight? A Darwinian Answer. In: Sternberg, R.J., Davidson, J.E. (eds.) The Nature of Insight, pp. 465–494. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations