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.