Abstract
A growing body of evidence suggests that reflecting on performance is an important source of individual learning. Given the importance of creativity in contemporary business settings, reflection has also been cast as a useful strategy to facilitate creative problem-solving. Challenging this idea, we conducted a series of lab experiments to examine the effects of reflection on creative problem-solving. Drawing from theory in cognitive psychology on knowledge structures, we argue that reflection may sometimes debilitate rather than improve creative problem-solving, due to the reinforcement of existing cognitive schemas and the resulting cognitive entrenchment. To test our theoretical arguments, we developed two alternative reflection strategies, imaginative reflection and vicarious elaboration. In Study 1 (N = 101), we observed a detrimental effect of task reflection on creative problem-solving, which was offset by having participants engage in imaginative reflection. In Study 2 (N = 191), vicarious elaboration, elaborating on another’s creative experiences instead of reflecting on one’s own creative experiences, was introduced as a second strategy to counter cognitive entrenchment. In Study 3 (N = 235), we combined the reflection strategies, demonstrating that imaginative thinking was more effective when focused on one’s own experiences rather than on others’ experiences (i.e., vicarious imaginative elaboration). Together, these findings increase our understanding of the effects of different reflection strategies, but also call for further research to address an intriguing observation: none of the reflection strategies led to better outcomes as compared to a control condition without reflection, suggesting that individual reflection might not help creative problem-solving at all.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Scenarios are included in Appendix A.
References
Adler, N. J. (2016). Want to be an outstanding leader? Keep a journal. Harvard Business Review, 13.
Allen, J. A., Baran, B. E., & Scott, C. W. (2010). After-action reviews: A venue for the promotion of safety climate. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 750–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.11.004.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social-psychology of creativity – a componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10:123167. JAI Press.
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128.
Anseel, F. (2017). Agile learning strategies for sustainable careers: A review and integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior and reflection. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 5157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.001.
Anseel, F., & Ong, M. (2020). Reflection: Behavioral strategies to structure and accelerate learning from experience. In V. S. Harvery & K. P. De Meuse (Eds.), The age of agility: Building learning agile leaders and organizations. SIOP Professional Practice Series – Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x2mz4.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.003.
Ashford, S. J., & DeRue, D. S. (2012). Developing as a leader: The power of mindful engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.008.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
Berg, J. M. (2019). When silver is gold: Forecasting the potential creativity of initial ideas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 154, 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.08.004.
Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Inflexibility of experts—reality or myth? Quantifying the Einstellung effect in chess masters. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.02.001.
Bledow, R., Carette, B., Kühnel, J., & Pittig, D. (2017). Learning from others’ failures: The effectiveness of failure-stories for managerial learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16, 3953. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0169.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication., 140, 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661.
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The CambridgeHandbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 21–30). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.002.
Cohen, J. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (2010). Take some time to think this over: The relation between rumination, indecision, and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903579601.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Science. Routledge.
Corral, D., & Jones, M. (2014). The effects of relational structure on analogical learning. Cognition, 132, 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.007.
Criscuolo, P., Dahlander, L., Grohsjean, T., & Salter, A. (2017). Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the slection of R&D projects. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 433460. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0861.
Dahlin, K. B., Chuang, Y., & Roulet, T. J. (2018). Opportunity, motivation and ability to learn from failures and errors: Review, synthesis, and the way forward. Academy of Management Annals., 35, 579–603. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53502832.
Dane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53502832.
Dane, E., Baer, M., Pratt, M. G., & Oldham, G. R. (2011). Rational versus intuitive problem solving: How thinking “off the beaten path” can stimulate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017698.
Day, E. A., Arthur, W., & Gettman, D. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 10221033. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.1022.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. (2012). A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028244.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Meurs, T. (2006). Where creativity resides: The generative power of unconscious thought. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 15(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.04.007.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.3.
Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 857–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.857.
Ellis, S., Ganzach, Y., Castle, E., & Sekely, G. (2010). The effect of filmed versus personal after-event reviews on task performance: The mediating and moderating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017867.
Ellis, S., Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2014). Systematic reflection: Implications for learning from failures and successes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413504106.
Epstude, K., & Roese, N. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308316091.
Evans, J. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012633.
Gary, M. S., & Wood, R. E. (2010). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 569594. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.899.
Gilbert, E., Foulk, T., & Bono, J. (2018). Building personal resources through interventions: An integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2198.
Gioia, D. A., & Manz, C. C. (1985). Linking cognition and behavior: A script processing interpretation of vicarious learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 527–539. https://doi.org/10.2307/258134.
Gong, Y., Wang, M., Huang, J. C., & Cheung, S. Y. (2017). Toward a goal orientation-based feedback-seeking typology: Implications for employee performance outcomes. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1234–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314551797.
González-Vallejo, C., Lassiter, G. D., Bellezza, F. S., & Lindberg, M. J. (2008). “Save angels perhaps”: A critical examination of unconscious thought theory and the deliberation-without-attention effect. Review of General Psychology, 12(3), 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013134.
Gordon, H., & Smith Hullfish, P. H. (1961). Reflective Thinking: The Method of Education by H. Gordon Hullfish and Philip G. Smith. Dodd, Mead and Company, 1961. 273 pp. $2.95. In Reflective thinking: The method of education. Dodd, Mead & Co.. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131726209340634.
Gupta, N., Jang, Y., Mednick, S. C., & Huber, D. E. (2012). The road not taken: Creative solutions require avoidance of high-frequency responses. Psychological Science, 23, 288–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429710.
Hao, N., Ku, Y., Liu, M., Hu, Y., Bodner, M., Grabner, R. H., & Fink, A. (2016). Reflection enhances creativity: Beneficial effects of idea evaluation on idea generation. Brain and cognition, 103, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.01.005.
Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and de-biasing methods on predictions of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.205.
Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: A meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990-2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752235.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1986). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
Kray, L. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Wong, E. M. (2006). Thinking within the box. The relational processing style elicited by counterfactual mind-sets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.33.
Lachner, A., & Nueckles, M. (2015). Bothered by abstractness or engaged by cohesion? Experts’ explanations enhance novices’ deep-learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000038.
Lanaj, K., Foulk, T. A., & Erez, A. (2018). Energizing leaders via self-reflection: A within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105, 118. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000350.
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001.
Madore, K. P., Addis, D. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2015). Creativity and memory effects of an episodic-specificity induction on divergent thinking. Psychological Science, 26(1461), 1468–1468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615591863.
Mandel, D. R. (2003). Effect of counterfactual and factual thinking on causal judgements. Thinking & Reasoning, 9, 245265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780343000231.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 137–230). Random House.
Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527890.
Maurer, T. J., Lehata, D. M., & Conklin, T. A. (2017). An exploration of differences in content and processes underlying reflection on challenging experiences at work. Human resource development quarterly, 28, 337368. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21283.
Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of Management, 38, 1362–1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441835.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P., & Supinski, E. P. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: IV. Category combination. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1001_7.
Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 34–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323.
Payne, J. W., Samper, A., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (2008). Boundary conditions on unconscious thought in complex decision making. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1118–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02212.x.
Puccio, G. J. (1999). Creative problem solving preferences: Their identification and implications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8, 171178. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00134.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem solving perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.005.
Romer, P. M. (1992). Two strategies for economic development: Using ideas and producing ideas. The World Bank Economic Review, 6(suppl_1), 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/6.suppl_1.63.
Ron, N., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2006). How organizations learn: Post-flight reviews in an F-16 fighter squadron. Organization Studies, 27, 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606064567.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system. In R. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition,1: 161188. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929.
Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationships? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01255.x.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple Smith.
Shin, Y., Kim, M., & Lee, S.-H. (2017). Reflection toward creativity: Team reflexivity as a linking mechanism between team goal orientation and team creative performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9462-9.
Smith, K. G., & Di Gregorio, D. (2002). Bisociation, Discovery and the Role of Entrepreneurial Action. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating a New Mindset (pp. 129–150). Blackwell.
Stacey, M., Eckert, C., & Wiley, J. (2002). Expertise and creativity in knitwear design. International Journal of New Product Development and Innovation Management, 4, 49–64.
Stam, D. A., de Vet, A., Barkema, H. G., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Why quiet reflection improves development performance. RSM Discovery - Management Knowledge, 17, 14–15 Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/50722.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human factors, 55, 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394.
Valacich, J. S., Wheeler, B. C., Mennecke, B. E., & Wachter, R. (1995). The effects of numerical and logical group-size on computer-mediated idea generation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 318329. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1053.
Vashdi, D. R., Bamberger, P. A., & Erez, M. (2013). Can surgical teams ever learn? The role of coordination, complexity, and transitivity in action team learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 945–971. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0501.
Verhaeghen, P., Joormann, J., & Aikman, S. N. (2014). Creativity, mood, and the examined life: Self-reflective rumination boosts creativity, brooding breeds dysphoria. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 8, 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035594.
Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 163206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163.
Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. MIT press.
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Modes of expertise in creative thinking: Evidence from case studies. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 761–787). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190801955467.
Yanow, D., & Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological account. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1339–1364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00859.x.
Zhong, C. B., Dijksterhuis, A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). The merits of unconscious thought in creativity. Psychological science, 19(9), 912–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02176.x.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Ronald Bledow, Ute Hulsheger, Jonas Lang, and Hannes Leroy for the comments on the previous versions of our paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 44 kb)
Appendices
Appendix A
Scenarios
-
1.
Toilet paper scenario: A production manager of a multinational, which produces toilet paper, is confronted with a new package problem of toilet paper. Based on market research, it seems that consumers would like to have more compact packages of toilet paper without reduction of the amount and quality of toilet paper.
-
2.
Shampoo bottle scenario: A production manager of a multinational, which produces shampoo bottles, is confronted with a complaint of consumers. Based on market research, it seems that consumers are being irritated if they are unable to use the last remnant due to the stickiness of shampoo.
Appendix B
Shampoo Design Coding Rules
General rule is ‘Count all specific design options for the shampoo bottle problem.’ The problem is stickiness of shampoo. Considering this problem: ‘Is the proposed design a concrete solution for the problem?’
Comma
-
One bullet point with different ideas separated by comma = count as different ideas.
Brackets
-
A different idea written between brackets next to another idea = count as two ideas.
Arrow
-
One idea combined with an arrow and followed by a consequence = count as one idea.
-
One idea combined with an arrow and followed by a new idea = count as two ideas.
Synonym and Rehearsal
-
Synonyms = count as one idea.
-
Writing down the same idea twice in different bullet points = count as one idea.
Conjunctions
-
One bullet point with different ideas separated by & or and or or = count as different ideas. Beware, if the different ideas belong to one idea = count as one idea.
Essay
-
If ideas are written as an essay instead of bullet points = count each different idea.
-
An idea combined with an example = count as one idea.
Question
-
Different questions = count as different ideas.
Drawings
-
If a drawing is a visualization of an idea = count as one idea.
-
If drawings represent different new ideas = count as different ideas.
Remainders
-
Do not count the word ‘other’. If ‘other’ is written without suggestion, do not count it as an idea.
-
Do not count incomplete sentences.
Appendix C
Reflection Exercise Coding Rules
1. Did the participant continue writing additional creative applications?
2. Did the participant write a ‘?’, ‘/’, or absolutely nothing?
3. Did the participant write random words that had nothing to do with the creativity task?
4. Did the participant indicate that it is abstract or too complex?
5. Did the participant think imaginatively?
6. Did the participant think factually?
7. Did the participant think imaginatively and factually?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rosseel, J., Anseel, F. When Reflection Hinders Creative Problem-Solving: a Test of Alternative Reflection Strategies. J Bus Psychol 37, 429–441 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09741-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09741-8