1. bookVolume 4 (2017): Issue 2 (December 2017)
Journal Details
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
access type Open Access

A Bridge Too Far: Conceptual Distance and Creative Ideation

Published Online: 29 Dec 2017
Volume & Issue: Volume 4 (2017) - Issue 2 (December 2017)
Page range: 333 - 352
Received: 18 Jul 2017
Accepted: 03 Nov 2017
Journal Details
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year

Previous research has shown changing perspectives to be important in problem finding, with viewpoint-based techniques like the 'six thinking hats' and the 'six honest serving men' improving performance (e.g. Vernon & Hocking, 2014). To date, however, evidence for similar techniques based on conceptually 'near' and 'far' cues, where conceptual distance is defined topologically in a semantic space, has shown mixed results. In a sample of 171 participants, we used two standard verbal problem scenarios together with a novel technique comprising six concepts that were either conceptually near or far from the problem scenario. Participants in the experimental group used the concepts when generating solutions; controls were given empty placeholders instead of concepts. Performance was measured for fluency, quality, originality and flexibility. Apart from flexibility, participants did worse when using concepts of either type in comparison to controls. For flexibility, a borderline boost for far concepts was observed (η2 = .03, p = .06). We conclude that the cognitive load overhead introduced by our concept-cueing technique, or any other similar technique that attempts to shape the creative process, needs to be minimised through a variety of methods before we can better determine its usefulness and, thus, the role of conceptual distance in creative problem solving.


Altshuller, G., & Shulyak, L. (1996). And suddenly the inventor appeared: TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving. Technical Innovation Center, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar

Arreola, N. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). The effect of problem construction creativity on solution creativity across multiple everyday problems. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(3), 287.10.1037/a0040389Search in Google Scholar

Aust, F., & Barth, M. (2015). Papaja: Create APA manuscripts with RMarkdown.Search in Google Scholar

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27(3), 158-163.10.1080/02783190509554310Search in Google Scholar

Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). Revisiting Mednick’s model on creativity-related differences in associative hierarchies. Evidence for a common path to uncommon thought. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(4), 273-289.10.1002/jocb.35Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Oxford, UK: Psychology Press.10.4324/9780203508527Search in Google Scholar

Chan, J., & Schunn, C. (2015). The Impact of Analogies on Creative Concept Generation: Lessons From an In Vivo Study in Engineering Design. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 126-155.10.1111/cogs.12127Search in Google Scholar

Chan, J., Dow, S. P., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Do the best design ideas (really) come from conceptually distant sources of inspiration? Design Studies, 36, 31-58.10.1016/j.destud.2014.08.001Search in Google Scholar

Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(8), 401-411.10.1115/1.4004396Search in Google Scholar

Chiu, I., & Shu, L. H. (2012). Investigating effects of oppositely related semantic stimuli on design concept creativity. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 271-296.10.1080/09544828.2011.603298Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47-60.10.1509/jmkr. DOISearch in Google Scholar

Daly, S. R., Christian, J. L., Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2012). Assessing design heuristics for idea generation in an introductory engineering course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 463-473.Search in Google Scholar

De Bono, E., & Zimbalist, E. (1993). Teach your child how to think. London, UK: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar

Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(2), 97-111.10.1002/j.2162-6057.1982.tb00326.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

Dunbar, K. (2000). How Scientists Think in the Real World: Implications for Science Education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 49-58.10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00050-7Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Duncker, K., & Lees, L. S. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1-113.10.1037/h0093599Search in Google Scholar

Elff, M. (2016). Memisc: Tools for Management of Survey Data and the Presentation of Analysis Results. Retrieved from https://rdrr.io/rforge/memisc/Search in Google Scholar

Fantoni, G., Taviani, C., & Santoro, R. (2007). Design by functional synonyms and antonyms: A structured creative technique based on functional analysis. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(4), 673-683.10.1243/09544054JEM635Search in Google Scholar

Feldhusen, J. F., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1986). Creativity instructional materials: A review of research. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(3), 153-182.10.1002/j.2162-6057.1986.tb00435.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

Fontenot, N. A. (1993). The Effects of Training in Creativity and Creative Problem-finding Upon Business People as Measured by Fluency, Flexibility, and Quality of the Problem Statement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 11-22.10.1080/00224545.1993.9712114Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, A., & Golden, B. (1997). Why didn’t I think of that? Bizarre origins of ingenious inventions we couldn’t live without. University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fu, K., Chan, J., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., Schunn, C., & Wood, K. (2013). The meaning of “near” and “far”: The impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(2), 021007.10.1115/1.4023158Search in Google Scholar

Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Conceptual spaces as a framework for knowledge representation. Mind and Matter, 2(2), 9-27.Search in Google Scholar

Getzels, J. W., & Smilansky, J. (1983). Individual differences in pupil perceptions of school problems. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(3), 307-316.10.1111/j.2044-8279.1983.tb02563.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. Collier-Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Hoever, I. J., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982.10.1037/a0029159Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Huh, Y.-j., & Kim, M. S. (2012). Study on creativity of game graphics. In Embedded and Multimedia Computing Technology and Service (pp. 339-346). The Netherlands: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Kenett, Y. N., Anaki, D., & Faust, M. (2014). Investigating the structure of semantic networks in low and high creative persons. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 407.10.3389/fnhum.2014.00407Search in Google Scholar

Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211-240.10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211Search in Google Scholar

Lawrence, M. A. (2016). Ez: Easy Analysis and Visualization of Factorial Experiments. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ez/index.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

Malaga, R. A. (2000). The effect of stimulus modes and associative distance in individual creativity support systems. Decision Support Systems, 29(2), 125-141.10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00067-1Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220.10.1037/h0048850Search in Google Scholar

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-Based Measures of Creative Problem-Solving Skills: I. Problem Construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 63-76.10.1207/s15326934crj0901_6Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In Runco, M. A. (Ed.), Creativity research. Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. (2003). An experimental study on the design thinking process started from difficult keywords: Modeling the thinking process of creative design. Journal of Engineering Design, 14(4), 429-437.10.1080/09544820310001606911Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

NASA Human Performance Research Group, & others. (1987). Task Load Index (NASATLX) v1. 0 computerised version. NASA Ames Research Centre.Search in Google Scholar

Navarro, D. (2015). Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners. (Version 0.5). Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104). Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Search in Google Scholar

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination, principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York: Schribner.Search in Google Scholar

Parker, S. K., Atkins, P. W., & Axtell, C. M. (2008). Building Better Workplaces through Individual Perspective Taking: A Fresh Look at a Fundamental Human Process. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 23, 149-172.10.1002/9780470773277.ch5Search in Google Scholar

Prabhakaran, R., Green, A. E., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Thin slices of creativity: Using single-word utterances to assess creative cognition. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 641-659.10.3758/s13428-013-0401-7Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

R Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Search in Google Scholar

Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., & Threlfall, K. V. (1998). Solving everyday problems creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 187-197.10.1207/s15326934crj1103_1Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Revelle, W. (2017). Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University. Retrieved from https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/psych/index.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

Rossmann, E., & Fink, A. (2010). Do creative people use shorter associative pathways? Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 891-895.10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.025Search in Google Scholar

Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16(4), 235-241.10.1080/02783199409553588Search in Google Scholar

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420.10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3-4), 181-201.10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Sowden, P. T., Clements, L., Redlich, C., & Lewis, C. (2015). Improvisation facilitates divergent thinking and creativity: Realizing a benefit of primary school arts education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 128-138.10.1037/aca0000018Search in Google Scholar

Stevenson, A. (Ed.). (2016). Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vernon, D., & Hocking, I. (2014). Thinking hats and good men: Structured techniques in a problem construction task. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 41-46.10.1016/j.tsc.2014.07.001Search in Google Scholar

Vernon, D., & Hocking, I. (2016). Beyond belief: Structured techniques prove more effective than a placebo intervention in a problem construction task. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 153-159.10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.009Search in Google Scholar

Vernon, D., Hocking, I., & Tyler, T. C. (2016). An Evidence-Based Review of Creative Problem Solving Tools A Practitioner’s Resource. Human Resource Development Review, 15(2), 230-259.10.1177/1534484316641512Search in Google Scholar

Warnes, G. R., Bolker, B., Gorjanc, G., Grothendieck, G., Korosec, A., & Lumley, T. (2015). Gdata: Various R Programming Tools for Data Manipulation.Search in Google Scholar

Weisberg, R. W. (2009). On ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking in creativity. In Arthur Markman & Kristin Wood (Eds.), Tools for innovation (pp. 23-47). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.Search in Google Scholar

Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Attention, time-sharing, and workload. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 3, 439-479.Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., Nelson, B. A., & Yen, J. (2010). The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies, 31(2), 169-186.10.1016/j.destud.2009.10.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Xie, Y. (2015). Dynamic Documents with R and knitr (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman and Hall/CRC. Search in Google Scholar

Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2009). Perception of emotion, alexithymia and creative potential. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(3), 353-358.10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.030Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo