Jonah Bossewitch	Prof. Johnson-Laird

Cog 200	12/13/93

Problem 4: Creativity

This experiment tested the way that people combine simple shapes into recognizable objects. Subjects were told to draw a picture of an object using only the shapes shown to them. They were instructed that the all of the shapes had to be used once and the shapes could be rotated or scaled. The object that the subjects were asked to draw was a car. The subjects were then shown three sets of shapes and asked to draw a picture of a car using each set of shapes. The shapes used in each trial are shown in figure 1.

The combination of simple shape into recognizable objects is a task that is broken into several separate components. First, the subject must form a mental model of the recognizable object. This mental model incorporates information about the shape of the object along with other information about the object, such as its function. After forming a mental model of the object the subject then forms a mental model of the picture that he/she is trying to create. In forming the model of the object the subject determines what features of the object are crucial for that object to be considered an object. It is this primary model that generates the picture models that will be used to create the picture from the shapes. Once this picture model is formed the subject then attempts to use the shapes given to construct that picture. If a way to form the image from the shapes given is not seen immediately, the subject has a few choices. He/she can attempt to manipulate the shapes to form the image, he/she can revise his picture model based on the object model, or he/she can revise his object model. According to this account, a creative image (with respect to the subject and not to the viewer) is one in which in order to satisfy the constraints, a revision of either the object model, the picture model, or manipulation of the shapes has been carried out. In general, the more fundamental a revision, the more creative the image.

There are two type of creativity that we can evaluate based on this experiment, creativity with respect to the individual and creativity with respect to others. The criterion for individual creativity is the exploration of the boundaries of the problem. As we have said, creativity involves model revision, and the degree of model revision performed is evident in the exploration of boundaries. In this experiment, no restriction was placed on the viewing angle, or the time period that the picture of the car had to be in. Subjects who revised their picture models to produce images of alternate viewing angles, and subjects that produced abstract or futuristic images of a car may be exhibiting a greater amount of individual creativity depending on what model they began with. At a different level than model revision is boundary exploration within the constraints set by the initial models formed by the subject. Creativity of this type is expressed in the manipulations of the shapes in non-obvious ways, such as using part of a 'J' as a circle or distorting the relative sizes of the shapes. Future experiments to explore the relationship between constraint exploration and creativity might include not specifying that the shapes can be rotated, or explicitly stating that the picture may be an image of a car from any angle or time period. According to this theory, boundaries made explicit should be more frequent in the subjects responses.

A second type of creativity we might evaluate is creativity with respect to others, that is starting with a model that most people would not have started with. This type of creativity is measured by looking for the responses that differ the most from the average response. This creativity with respect to others is difficult to differentiate from individual creativity. If a person's response is different from everybody else's, the response may be a result of the revision of models, but it may also be that the subject thought of this response first, and no individual creativity (i.e. model revision) took place. Time may not be the best indication of model revision since different subjects may create at different rates. Asking the subject for a step by step description of how and why they arrived at their image might provide further insight into the phenomena of creativity. Creativity is a quality that is relative to the task as well as to the individual and the two must be distinguished.

In this experiment the trials were designed to force subjects to revise their initial models. The uniformity of responses to trial 2 indicates that in the experiment, most people formed an initial model of a car in which the wheels and the passenger compartment were crucial. The picture model most often formed was of a side view of the car model. Shape manipulation most frequently involved rotation, and less frequently scaling. The minority of subjects that did not form an image of the side view of a car with two wheels may have either started with different models, or gone out of their way to try and be creative since in an attempt to perform up to perceived expectations of the experimenter. With these factors in mind, individual creativity is more apparent in trails 1 and 3 where the shapes needed to be manipulated to form the side view of a car that preserved the essential functions of a car. Creativity in trial 1 could be assessed in terms of the manipulations of shapes. Trial 3 was the most difficult trail for most subjects, as indicated by question marks, and scribbled out attempts. This is because the shapes given are familiar to the subjects from other contexts (the letters J and P). It required a revision of the initial object model or else extensive manipulation of the shapes in order to make a car.

The criterion outlined above may not cover everything that people describe as creative, however the current concept of creativity is too vague and ill-defined to be studied and measures. Introducing distinctions between individual creativity and creativity with respect to others may not reflect the way that people think of creativity but it is crucial to be able to answer what we are trying to measure before we attempt to measure it.

Figure 1: The shapes shown to subjects.

Trial 1:

Trial 2:

Trial 3: