L. A. Vasconcelos, M. Neroni, Carlos Cardoso, N. Crilly
{"title":"设计灵感与固定实验中的想法表达与阐述","authors":"L. A. Vasconcelos, M. Neroni, Carlos Cardoso, N. Crilly","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2017.1362360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Design fixation experiments often report that participants exposed to an example solution generate fewer ideas than those who were not. This reduced ‘idea fluency’ is generally explained as participants’ creativity being constrained by the example they have seen. However, the inclusion of an example also introduces other factors that might affect idea fluency in the experiments. We here offer an additional explanation for these results: participants not exposed to the example tend to generate ideas with little elaboration, while the level of detail in the example encourages a similar level of elaboration among stimulated participants. Because idea elaboration is time consuming, non-stimulated participants record more ideas overall. We investigated this hypothesis by reanalyzing data from three different studies; in two of them we found that non-stimulated participants generated more ideas and more ideas containing only text, whilst stimulated participants generated ideas that were more elaborated. Based on the creativity literature, we provide several explanations for the differences in results found across studies. Our findings and explanations have implications for the interpretation of creativity experiments reported to date and for the design of future studies.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":"6 1","pages":"113 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2017.1362360","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Idea representation and elaboration in design inspiration and fixation experiments\",\"authors\":\"L. A. Vasconcelos, M. Neroni, Carlos Cardoso, N. Crilly\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21650349.2017.1362360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Design fixation experiments often report that participants exposed to an example solution generate fewer ideas than those who were not. This reduced ‘idea fluency’ is generally explained as participants’ creativity being constrained by the example they have seen. However, the inclusion of an example also introduces other factors that might affect idea fluency in the experiments. We here offer an additional explanation for these results: participants not exposed to the example tend to generate ideas with little elaboration, while the level of detail in the example encourages a similar level of elaboration among stimulated participants. Because idea elaboration is time consuming, non-stimulated participants record more ideas overall. We investigated this hypothesis by reanalyzing data from three different studies; in two of them we found that non-stimulated participants generated more ideas and more ideas containing only text, whilst stimulated participants generated ideas that were more elaborated. Based on the creativity literature, we provide several explanations for the differences in results found across studies. Our findings and explanations have implications for the interpretation of creativity experiments reported to date and for the design of future studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"113 - 93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2017.1362360\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2017.1362360\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2017.1362360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Idea representation and elaboration in design inspiration and fixation experiments
Abstract Design fixation experiments often report that participants exposed to an example solution generate fewer ideas than those who were not. This reduced ‘idea fluency’ is generally explained as participants’ creativity being constrained by the example they have seen. However, the inclusion of an example also introduces other factors that might affect idea fluency in the experiments. We here offer an additional explanation for these results: participants not exposed to the example tend to generate ideas with little elaboration, while the level of detail in the example encourages a similar level of elaboration among stimulated participants. Because idea elaboration is time consuming, non-stimulated participants record more ideas overall. We investigated this hypothesis by reanalyzing data from three different studies; in two of them we found that non-stimulated participants generated more ideas and more ideas containing only text, whilst stimulated participants generated ideas that were more elaborated. Based on the creativity literature, we provide several explanations for the differences in results found across studies. Our findings and explanations have implications for the interpretation of creativity experiments reported to date and for the design of future studies.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation is an international publication that provides a forum for discussing the nature and potential of creativity and innovation in design from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Design creativity and innovation is truly an interdisciplinary academic research field that will interest and stimulate researchers of engineering design, industrial design, architecture, art, and similar areas. The journal aims to not only promote existing research disciplines but also pioneer a new one that lies in the intermediate area between the domains of systems engineering, information technology, computer science, social science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, psychology, philosophy, linguistics, and related fields. The journal covers, but is not restricted to, the following topics: ·Theories on Design Creativity and Innovation ·Cognition of Design Creativity ·Innovative Process ·Inventive Process ·Analogical Reasoning for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Design Synthesis ·Method and Tools for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Representation of Design Creativity and Innovation ·Education for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Concept Generation and Inspiration.