Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T13:44:26.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Alternative Knowledge Structures in Creative Thought: Schema, Associations, and Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2010

By
Michael D. Mumford ,
Cassie S. Blair  and
Richard T. Marcy
Edited by
James C. Kaufman  and
John Baer
Michael D. Mumford
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
Cassie S. Blair
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
Richard T. Marcy
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
John Baer
Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

A number of approaches might be used to understand how people think creatively. One might, for example, examine the performance characteristics associated with certain problem-solving tasks known to elicit creative thought (Mumford, 2002). One might try to identify the abilities people must posses if they are to solve creative problems (Sternberg & O'Hara, 1999). And, one might examine the errors people make as they work through problems calling for creative thought (Carlson & Gorman, 1992).

Although these alternative approaches all have value, process analysis remains the dominant approach in studies of creative thought (Brophy, 1998; Lubart, 2001). In process studies, an attempt is made to identify the major cognitive operations that occur as people work on the complex, novel, ill-defined tasks that call for creative thought and the production of original, albeit useful, products (Ghiselin, 1963; Mace & Ward, 2002; Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999). The attraction of the process approach is because of both its generality and the framework provided for identifying the heuristics, or strategies, needed at each step in peoples' creative efforts.

Over the years, a number of models describing the processes involved in creative thought have been proposed (Dewey, 1910; Merrifield, Guilford, Christensen, & Frick, 1962; Parnes & Noller, 1972; Sternberg, 1985; Wallas, 1926). In a review of this literature, Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon, & Doares, 1991; Mumford, Peterson, & Childs, 1999) identified eight core process that appeared to be involved in most real-world creative problem-solving efforts: (1) problem construction, (2) information gathering, (3) concept selection, (4) conceptual combination, (5) idea generation, (6) idea evaluation, (7) implementation planning, and (8) monitoring.

Type
Chapter
Information
Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development , pp. 117 - 136
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R. J., & Ericsson, A. E. (2000). Introduction to cognitive processes of expert pilots. Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 5, 44–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Antonietti, A. (1946). Source processing influences on analogical problem-solving. Journal of General Psychology, 123, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In Collins, A. F., Gathercole, S. E., Conway, M. A., & Monnis, P. E. (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 24–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes, and behaviors work together: A causal process model. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baughman, W. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Process analytic models of creative capacities: Operations involved in the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, C. R., & Jordan, J. M. (1992). Planning sources, planning difficulty, and verbal fluency. Communication Monographs, 59, 130–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1147–1156.Google Scholar
Carlson, W. B., & Gorman, M. E. (1992). A cognitive framework to understand technological creativity: Bell, Edison, and the Telephone. In Weber, R. J. & Perkins, D. N. (Eds.), Inventive minds: Creativity in technology (pp. 48–79). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassock, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clement, J. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem-solving. Cognitive Science, 12, 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coney, S., & Serna, P. (1995). Creative thinking from an information processing perspective: A new approach to Merrick's Theory of Associative Hierarchies. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–338). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: Houghton.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1991). Cognitive architectures from the standpoint of an experimental psychologist. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estes, Z., & Ward, J. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (1998). The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2, 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 169–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performances. New York: Wiley.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, B. (1963). Ultimate criteria for two levels of creativity. In Taylor, C. W. & Barron, F. (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 30–43). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gruszka, A., & Necka, E. (2002). Priming and acceptance of close and remote associations by creative and less creative people. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, K. J. (1990). Case-based planning: A framework for planning from experience. Cognitive Science, 14, 385–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershey, D. A., Walsh, D. A., Read, S. J., & Chulef, A. S. (1990). Effects of expertise on financial problem-solving: Evidence for goal-directed, problem-solving scripts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoak, K. J., & Kroger, J. K. (1996). Forms of reasoning: Insight into prefrontal functions. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 106, 253–263.Google Scholar
Howe, M. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality of myth? Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 399–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydenbluth, C., & Hesse, F. W. (1996). Impact of superficial similarity in the application phase of analogical problem-solving. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jani, N., & Levine, D. S. (2000). A neural network theory of propositional analogy-making. Neural Networks, 13, 149–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, M. (1987). On retrieving analogies when solving problems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Kolodner, J. L., & Simpson, R. L. (1989). The mediator: Analysis of an early case-based problem-solver. Cognitive Science, 13, 507–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koplinka, L., Brandan, R., & Lemmon, A. (1988). Case-based reasoning for continuous control. In Kolodner, J. L. (Ed.) Proceedings: Workshop on case-based reasoning (pp. 116–136). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
Kubose, T. T., Holyoak, K. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2002). The role of textual coherence in incremental analogical mapping. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 407–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lonergan, D. C., Scott, G. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Effects of idea appraisal and revision standards. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present, and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mace, M. A., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process: A grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 3, 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrifield, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., & Frick, J. W. (1962). The role of intellectual factors in problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social innovation: Ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Supinski, E. P., & Maher, M. A. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills. Part II: Information encoding. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle 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. Part I: Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., & Gaddis, B. (2003). How creative leaders think: Experimental findings and cases. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, C. (1991). Process-analytic models of creative capabilities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N. G., & Childs, R. A. (1999). Basic and cross-functional skills: Taxonomies, measures, and findings in assessing job skill requirements. In Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Boaman, U. C., Jeanrenet, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A. (Eds.), An occupational informational system for the 21st century: The development of O∗NET (pp. 49–70). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle 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.), Problem finding, problem-solving, and creativity (pp. 3–39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Doorn, J. R. (2001). Performance in planning: Processes, requirements, and errors. Review of General Psychology, 5, 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills. Part V: Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 77–85.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noice, H. (1991). The role of explanations and plan recognition in the learning of theatrical scripts. Cognitive Science, 15, 425–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real-world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, K. (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: A case study. ETR & D, 49, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1972). Applied creativity: The creative studies project: Part results of a two year program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 164–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patalano, A. L., & Seifert, C. M. (1997). Opportunistic planning: Being reminded of pending goals. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phye, G. D. (1990). Inductive problem-solving: Schema inducement and memory-based transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 826–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poliastro, E. (1995). Creative intuition: An integrative review. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radvansky, G. A. (1994). Mental systems, representation, and process. In Williams, C. E. (Ed.), Associated systems theory: A systematic approach to cognitive representations of persons (pp. 982–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Read, S. J. (1987). Constructing causal scenarios: A knowledge structure approach to causal reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 288–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1992). An evolutionary context for the cognitive unconscious. Philosophical Psychology, 5, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S., Kassin, S. M., Lewis, S., & Cantor, L. W. (1980). On the relation between implicit and explicit modes in the learning of a complex rule structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 492–502.Google Scholar
Reber, P. J., Knowlton, B., & Squire, L. R. (1996). Dissociable properties of memory systems: Differences in the flexibility of declarative and nondeclarative knowledge. Behavioral Neuroscience, 110, 861–871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeves, L. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (1994). The role of content and abstract information in analogical transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostan, S. M. (1994). Problem finding, problem-solving, and cognitive controls: An empirical investigation of critically acclaimed productivity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothenberg, A. (1987). To error is human: The role of error in creativity and psychotherapy. In Schwarz, D. P., Sacksteder, J. L., & Aksbane, Y. (Eds.), Attachment and the Therapeutic Process: Essays in Honor of Otto Allen Will, Jr. (pp. 155–181). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, A. (1994). Studies in the creative process: An empirical investigation. In Massing, J. M. & Bornstein, R. F. (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on object relations theory (pp. 145–245). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (in press). Conceptual combination: Alternate knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal.Google Scholar
Seifert, C. M., Hammond, K. J., Johnson, H. M., Converse, T. M., McDougal, T. F., & Vanderstoep, S. W. (1994). Case-based learning: Predictive features in indexing. Archive Learning, 16, 37–56.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). A three facet model of creativity: In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 124–147). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1998). Cognitive conceptions of expertise and their relations to giftedness. Freidman, R. C. & Rodgers, K. B. (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 177–191). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & O'Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt-Brace.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., & Sifonis, C. M. (2004). The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theory. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, Y., Milgram, P., & Doyle, D. J. (1997). Planning behavior and its functional role in interactions with complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 27, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 41–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×