Something for Nothing? Increasing Insight in Groups
description
Transcript of Something for Nothing? Increasing Insight in Groups
Something for Nothing? Increasing Insight in
GroupsMatthew A. Cronin
Motivation• Increase the likelihood of innovation
and creativity when people work.– Creativity/innovation: improvements to
the way a problem is solved that come from changing the problem conceptualization (e.g., cost reduction vs. increased sales)
– Work: iterated problem solving
Outline of talk• Review the basic individual level
cognitive theory that is foundation for my work
• Explain my model• Show simulation• Show individual level corroborative
data• Show group level corroborative data
Problem solving processes
(Re)Conceptualize
Problem
Solve
ProblemGOAL
Problem solving processes
(Re)Conceptualize
Problem
Solve
ProblemGOAL
Conscious
Problem solving processes
(Re)Conceptualize
Problem
Solve
ProblemGOAL
ConsciousUnconscious
Conscious/ incremental DONALD+ GERALD ROBERT
D = 5
Unconscious/ radical• A woman who did not have her
driver’s license on her went through a stop sign without stopping, then traveled 3 blocks the wrong way down a one way street. A cop saw all of this and did nothing, why?
My model
ConsciousProcesses
UnconsciousProcesses
MoveSelection Insight
MentalEnergy
Simulation• Corroborate intuition by comparing
to established pattern (preparation-impasse-illumination)
• Mechanics– Mental Energy (ME) = thinking
capacity per unit time– CSdemand = unexplored PS/Visible PS– UCSinflow = ME – (CSdemand – ε)
Simulation of the model
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101
Time
Impasse
Insight
Problem spaceexpands, yieldingnew possibilities
Incubationperiod
Amou
nt o
f men
tal e
nerg
y pe
r unit
time
alloc
ated
to u
ncon
sciou
s th
inking
(gra
y lin
e)
Perc
enta
ge o
f pro
blem
spa
ce e
xplor
ed(b
lack
line)
Further validation of basic concept
• Can we demonstrate that doing simultaneous conscious activity increases time to insight?
• Experiment– Have subjects answer insight questions – Ss either simultaneously trace a
picture, look at picture, or do nothing– 131 Undergraduates, 80% male
Results
Difference is significant (p<.05)
Can we use this knowledge to make groups more creative?
• Divide cognitive labor (some do insight, some do incremental)
• Will this lead to more insights and better performance?
Imbalance between incremental/insight processes
• Preference for incremental thinking (even when not productive)
• Potential for much redundancy and half starts in thinking– Redundancy – I think through ideas you
already have– Half starts – not thinking an insight
through• Switching costs
Experiment 1• Build 3 different types of products
from common household materials– Products send eggs to a target– “Type” is defined by delivery method
• 90 undergraduates, 50% female, same sex groups of 3– Performance = eggs thrown to target – Insights – coded via standard categories
(functional fixedness, constraint relaxation, re-encoding)
Unpartitioned Partitioned
Think of new approaches
And
Build Products
Think of new approaches
Build Products
Group Structure
Group Structure
Cognitive Functions
Cognitive Functions
UnpartitionedM(perf) = 5.9M(insite) = 9.4
3.1
6.6
2.9
Removing the conscious demands increased insight, did nothing for performance
Group Structure
Group Structure
Mean Insights
Mean Insights
PartitionedM(perf) = 5.5
M(insite) = 12.3
Follow up experiment• Performance was equal, but did we
get something for nothing?• Is the “insight” process
generalizable to pattern recognition
Experiment 2• Generate words from given letters and
then sentences from words (Root Words: DULL, BEN, IAMBIC)– Word generation (in, mine, bib, club, I, am,
climb, a) is mostly UCS– Sentence generation (I climb in a club) is
mostly CS• 156 undergraduates, 50% female, same
sex groups of 3• DVs: Words, sentences, total performance
Unpartitioned Partitioned
Think of words
And
Think of sentences
Think of sentences
Think of words
Group Structure
Group Structure
Cognitive Functions
Cognitive Functions
28.439.5
Removing the conscious demands increased word production
Group Structure
Group Structure
Mean Words
Mean Words
UnpartitionedM(sent) = 15.5M(Zperf) = .07
PartitionedM(sent) = 12.0M(Zperf) = -.07
Future research• Model validity
– Interference in both directions?– Unconscious “pull”?
• Group issues– What happens between idea generation
and implementation?– Effect of interpersonal processes– Integrating cognition
The big question• How to position this story so I can
publish it in a top tier journal, get tenure, get fame, demand high consulting wages, ignore student complaints that I am a hard teacher, and live happily ever after.