Divergent Thinking: Creativity with Restrictions

Mixed-Methods Research

Data Visualization

MY ROLE

DURATION

Researcher

• Participant Recruiting

• Data Collection

• Statistical Analysis

• Research Report

3 Months

February 2024 - April 2024

OVERVIEW

__________________________________

This study analyzes the differences in creativity (specifically divergent thinking) among college students with varying Personal Need for Structure (PNS) scale scores when assigned restrictive or unrestrictive tasks.

The Personal Need for Structure (PNS) questionnaire describes an individual’s need for cognitive structure and the inherent need for order. Divergent thinking, a crucial component of creativity, was tested by assigning two shape response tasks to participants, designed to obstruct or broaden their choices.

BACKGROUND

• Creativity and Analytical Thinking are often seen in society as two juxtaposing realms that do not have any mutually reciprocal qualities.

• Previous research states that the artistically talented individual is the most creative (Maksymchuk & Nerubasska, 2020), but this statement does not take into consideration other factors that may bring creativity to life such attention to detail, organization, etc.
  

• Most researchers utilize the ‘Alternative Uses Task’ to test one’s divergent thinking or ability to come up with novel responses, but there were no specific objective scales used.
  

• Although it sounds paradoxical, restrictive conditions and tasks could impel more creativity (Rietzschel et al., 2014).

HYPOTHESES

METHOD

Participants

28 total

• College students from various fields of study, i.e., graphic design, psychology, engineering, etc, and recruited virtually through an online interest form

• Split into two equal groups of 14, depending on low or high PNS scores, and compared.

• Received standardized information about how their information/data would be utilized via an informed consent form.

• We took the proper measures to reassure them that their responses would be entirely confidential and informed them of the benefits and risks associated with their participation in the study.

Materials

• Administered via Qualtrics

• Informed Consent form, Restrictive Response Shape (RSR) Task and Unrestrictive Shape Response (USR) Task Images, Personal Need for Structure Scale, Socio-Demographic questions

Design + Procedure

Participants completed a restrictive shape response (RSR) task and an unrestrictive shape response (USR) task.

USR= they were presented with 5 shapes and had to pick any 3 to use to mentally construct a house and a chair.

RSR = they were forced to use only 3 shapes to mentally construct a house and a chair.

Step 1: USR Task* (2 trials)
Step 2: RSR Task* (2 trials)
Step 3: PNS Questionnaire (12 questions)
Step 4: Socio-demographic questions (3 questions)

*Task Order was random for participants

DATA ANALYSIS

How we scored our responses before transferring our data to Excel and analyzing through reverse Anova testing on IBM SPSS:

Task Conditions: Unrestricted and Restricted

Asked a third-party evaluator to utilize this scale to assess novelty and creativity of participant responses:

• 7-point scale, with 1 = not at all creative, and 7 = outstandingly creative and groundbreaking

• Averaged both USR and RSR scores

PNS Scale

Five-point scale, 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree

• Three items were reverse scored

• Divided into two ranges, high (41-54) and low (24-40) scores

KEY FINDINGS

_____________________________________________

REFLECTIONS + FUTURE RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS