Business leaders, governments, and scholars are increasingly recognizing the importance of creativity. Recent trends in technology and education, however, suggest that many people are facing fewer opportunities to engage in creative thought as they increasingly solve well-defined (vs. ill-defined) problems. Using three studies that involve real problem-solving activities (e.g., putting together a LEGO kit), the authors examine the mindset created by addressing such well-defined problems. The studies demonstrate the negative downstream impact of such a mindset on both creative task performance and tendency to choose to engage in creative tasks. The research has theoretical implications for the creativity and mindset literature streams as well as substantive insights for managers and public policy makers.
AlmeidaLeandro S., PrietoLola, FerrandoMercedes, OliveiraEmma, and FerrándizCarmen (2008), “Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: The Question of Its Construct Validity,”Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 53–58.
2.
BaumeisterRoy F., BratslavskyEllen, MuravenMark, and TiceDianne M. (1998), “Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (5), 1252–65.
3.
BrendlC. Miguel, MarkmanArthur B., and MessnerClaude (2003), “The Devaluation Effect: Activating a Need Devalues Unrelated Objects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), 463–73.
BudnerStanley (1962), “Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable,”Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50.
6.
BurroughsJames, DahlDarren W., MoreauC. Page, ChattopadyayAmitava, and GornGerald J. (2011), “Facilitating and Rewarding Creativity During New Product Development,”Journal of Marketing, 75 (July), 53–67.
7.
BurroughsJames W. and MickDavid Glen (2004), “Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Creativity in a Problem-Solving Context,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 402–11.
CramondBonnie, Matthews-MorganJuanita, BandalosDeborah, and ZuoLi (2005), “A Report on the 40-Year Follow-Up on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Alive and Well in the New Millennium,”Gifted Child Quarterly, 49 (Fall), 283–91.
10.
CropleyArthur (2006), “In Praise of Convergent Thinking,”Creativity Research Journal, 18 (3), 391–404.
11.
DahlDarren W. and MoreauPage (2002), “The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking During New Product Ideation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 47–60.
12.
DahlDarren W. and MoreauPage (2007), “Thinking Inside the Box: Why Consumers Enjoy Constrained Creative Experiences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (August), 357–69.
13.
DharRavi and WertenbrochKlaus (2012), “Self-Signaling and the Costs and Benefits of Temptation in Consumer Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (February), 15–25.
14.
FinkeRonald, WardThomas, and SmithSteven (1992), Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
FitzsimonsGráinne M., ChartrandTanya L., and FitzsimonsGavan J. (2008), “Automatic Effects of Brand Exposure on Motivated Behavior: How Apple Makes You ‘Think Different,’”Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (June), 21–35.
16.
FrankeNikolaus, SchreierMartin, and KaiserUrike (2010), “The ‘I Designed It Myself’ Effect in Mass Customization,”Management Science, 56 (1), 125–40.
17.
GoldenbergJacob, MazurskyDavid, and SolomonSorin (1999), “Toward Identifying the Inventive Templates of New Products: A Channeled Ideation Approach,”Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 200–210.
18.
GollwitzerPeter M., (1990), “Action Phases and Mind-Sets,” in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, HigginsE.T. and SorrentinoR.M., eds. New York:Guilford Press, 53–92.
19.
GollwitzerPeter M., HeckhausenHeinz, and StellerBirgit (1990), “Deliberative and Implemental Mind-Sets: Cognitive Tuning Toward Congruous Thoughts and Information,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (6), 1119–27.
20.
GollwitzerPeter M. and MoskowitzGordon B. (1996), “Goal Effects on Action and Cognition,” in Handbook of Basic Principles, HigginsE. Tory and KruglanskiArie W., eds. New York: Guilford Press, 361–99.
21.
GuilfordJ. Paul (1967), The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
GuilfordJ. Paul, MerrifieldPhilip R., and WilsonRobert C. (1958), Unusual Uses Test. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.
23.
HamiltonRyan, VohsKathleen, SellierAnne-Laurie, and MeyvisTom (2011), “Being of Two Minds: Switching Mindsets Exhausts Self-Regulatory Resources,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115 (1), 13–24.
HélieSébastien and SunRon (2010), “Incubation, Insight, and Creative Problem Solving. A Unified Theory and Connectionist Model,”Psychological Review, 117 (July), 994–1024.
26.
IsenAlice M., DaubmanKimberly A., and NowickiGary P. (1987), “Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem Solving,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (6), 1122–31.
27.
JonassenDavid H. and KwonH.I. (2001), “Communication Pattern in Computer-Mediated vs. Face to Face Group Problem Solving,”Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 (10), 35–52.
28.
KimKyung Hee (2006), “Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT),”Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 3–14.
29.
KuncelNathan R., HezlettSarah A., and OnesDeniz S. (2004), “Academic Performance, Career Potential, Creativity, and Job Performance: Can One Construct Predict Them All?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 148–61.
30.
LeightonJacqueline P. and SternbergRobert J. (2012), “Reasoning and Problem Solving,” in Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 4, 2nd ed., HealyAlice F. and ProctorRobert W., eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 631–59.
31.
LevavJonathan, ReinholtzNicholas, and LinClaire (2012), “The Effect of Ordering Decisions by Choice-Set Size on Consumer Search,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (October), 585–99.
32.
LewinKurt, DemboTamara, FestingerLeon A., and SearsPauline S. (1944), “Level of Aspiration,” in Personality and the Behavior Disorders, Vol. 1, HuntJoseph McVicker, ed. New York: Ronald Press, 333–78.
33.
MalkocSelin A., ZaubermanGal, and BettmanJames R. (2010), “Unstuck from the Concrete: Carryover Effects of Abstract Mindsets in Intertemporal Preferences,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 112–26.
34.
MongaAlokparna Basu and Gürhan-CanliZeynep (2012), “The Influence of Mating Mind-Sets on Brand Extension Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (August), 581–93.
35.
MoreauC. Page and DahlDarren W. (2005), “Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumers’ Creativity,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 13–22.
36.
NewellAllen, ShawJ. Cliff, and SimonHerbert A. (1962), “The Processes of Creative Thinking,” in Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking, GruberH.E., TerrellG., and WertheimerM., eds. New York: Atherton Press, 63–119.
37.
NewellAllen and SimonHerbert A. (1972), Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
38.
OsborneJason W. (2006), “Bringing Balance and Technical Accuracy to Reporting Odds Ratios and the Results of Logistic Regression Analyses,”Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 11 (7), 1–6.
39.
PolsAuke J.K. (2002), “Insight Problem Solving,”doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Utrecht, Netherlands.
40.
ReitmanW.J. (1965), Cognition and Thought: An Information Processing Approach. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
41.
RuncoMark A., MillarGarnet, AcarCelcuk, and CramondBonnie (2010), “Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as Predictors of Personal and Public Achievement: A Fifty-Year Follow-Up,”Creativity Research Journal, 22 (4), 361–68.
42.
SchwartzBarry (2004), The Paradox of Choice. New York: HarperCollins.
43.
ShinNamsoo, JonassenDavid H., and McGeeSteven (2003), “Predictors of Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem Solving in an Astronomy Simulation,”Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.
44.
SimonHerbert A. (1973), “The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems,”Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.
45.
SimonHerbert A. (1999), “Problem Solving,” in The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, WilsonRobert A. and KeilFrank C., eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 676–77.
46.
SmithEliot R. (1994), “Procedural Knowledge and Processing Strategies in Social Cognition,” in Handbook of Social Cognition, 2nd ed., WyerRobert S. and SrullThomas K., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 101–51.
47.
SternbergRobert J. (2006), “The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT Through Assessments of Analytical, Practical, and Creative Skills,”Intelligence, 34, 321–50.
48.
SternbergRobert J. (2009), Cognitive Psychology. New York: Wadsworth.
49.
StokesPatricia D. (2007), “Using Constraints to Generate and Sustain Novelty,”Journal of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1 (2), 107–13.
50.
SuttonRobert I. (2001), “The Weird Rules of Creativity,”Harvard Business Review, (September), 95–103.
51.
TeganoDeborah W. (1990), “Relationship of Tolerance of Ambiguity and Playfulness to Creativity,”Psychological Reports, 66 (June), 1047–56.
52.
TorranceE. Paul (1974), “Verbal Tests, Forms A and B” and “Figural Tests, Forms A and B,” in The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms, Technical Manual Research ed. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
53.
TorranceE. Paul (2003), “The Millennium: A Time for Looking Forward and Looking Back,”Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15 (Fall), 6–12.
54.
ÜlkümenGülden, ChakravartiAmitav, and MorwitzVicki G. (2010), “Categories Create Mind-Sets: The Effect of Exposure to Broad Versus Narrow Categorizations on Subsequent, Unrelated Decisions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (August), 659–71.
55.
VossJames F. and PostTimothy A. (1988), “On the Solving of Ill-Structured Problems,” in The Nature of Expertise, ChiMichelene T.H., GlaserRobert, and FarrMarshall J., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 261–85.
56.
WhiteKatherine, MacDonnellRihannon, and DahlDarren W. (2011), “It's the Mind-Set That Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (June), 472–85.
57.
WyerRobert S.Jr., and XuAlison Jing (2010), “The Role of Behavioral Mind-Sets in Goal-Directed Activity: Conceptual Underpinnings and Empirical Evidence,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 107–25.
58.
XuAlison Jing and WyerRobert S. (2012), “The Role of Bolstering and Counterarguing Mind-Sets in Persuasion,”Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (February), 920–32.
59.
XuJing, JiangZixi, and DharRavi (2013), “Mental Representation and Perceived Similarity: How Abstract Mindset Aids Choice from Large Assortments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (August), 548–59.
60.
YangXiaojing, RingbergTorsten, MaoHuifang, and PeracchioLaura A. (2011), “The Construal (In)compatibility Effect: The Moderating Role of a Creative Mind-Set,”Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (December), 681–96.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
