Efficacy of Creative Problem Solving: Oh the Places Deliberate Creativity has Gone Parnes Tribute May 9, 2009 Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D. International Center for Studies in Creativity

1. Efficacy of Creative Problem
Solving: Oh the Places
Deliberate Creativity has Gone
Parnes Tribute
May 9, 2009
Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D.
International Center for Studies in Creativity

2. Historical Research on CPS:
Pre-CRS Project & CRS Project

3. CPS Research
• 1949-1956 Pilot Experimentation and
Course Development
• 1957-1967 Systematic Research of the
Impact of CPS Methods and Programs
• 1969-1972 Creative Studies Project, a
Experimental Investigation of the Impact of
a Sequence of Creativity Courses on
College Students

4. 1957-1967 Specific Research
Issues
• Effects of a Semester long Course on the
Development of Creativity
• Relative Effects of a Creativity Course used
Alone or Taken with an Instructor
• Effects of Extended Effort in CPS
• Effectiveness of the Principle “Defer
Judgment”

5. 1957-1967: Effects of a
Creativity Course
• Significant increase for two measures of
quantity of idea production
• Significant increase for three of five
measures of quality of ideas
• Long-term results seemed to be evident up
to four years after the course in creativity

6. 1957-1967: Alone or Taken
with an Instructor
• On almost all measures the instructor-taught
groups outperformed control groups
• Students who took program alone were
superior to control groups
• Instructor-taught groups out performed
students who took course alone

7. 1957-1967: Extended Effort
• Extended effort resulted in a significantly
greater proportion of good ideas among the
later ideas generated

8. 1957-1967: Defer Judgment
Principle
• Significantly more good ideas generated by
individuals working under the ‘defer
judgment’ principle than those instructed to
use concurrent judgment
• Groups trained in CPS generated
significantly more good ideas than those
using discussion

9. Creative Studies Project: An
Overview
• Pilot study began in 1969
• Courses based on CPS, Synectics, and Creative
Analysis
• Students randomly selected (30%) from the
incoming freshman class
• Students randomly assigned to groups
• Experimental subjects took a sequence of 4
creativity courses
• National advisory committee

10. Some Members of the Advisory
Committee
• John Curtis Gowan, Professor of Education, San
Fernando Valley State College
• J. P. Guilford, Professor of Psychology, University of
Southern California
• Donald MacKinnon, Professor of Psychology,
University of California at Berkeley
• Calvin Taylor, Professor of Psychology, University of
Utah
• Donald Treffinger, Chairman of Educational
Psychology, University of Kansas

11. Creative Studies Project:
Overview of Findings
• Semantic Tests: Experimental subjects significantly better on 16 of
27.
• Figural Tests: No significant differences on 8.
• Symbolic Tests: One significant differences in favor of the E’s for 1
of 8 .
• Cognition Tests: 7 of 10 significant differences.
• Divergent Production Tests: 9 of 14 significantly different.
• Convergent Production Tests: 4 of 8 significant.
• Evaluation & Memory Tests: No significant differences.
Parnes, 1987

12. Creative Studies Project:
Additional Findings
• E’s significantly out performed C’s on 2 of
5 creativity-related English tests.
• Significantly higher scores for E’s on the
production of original verbal images.
• Numerous anecdotal evidence from BSC
instructors on the impact of the creativity
program.

13. Recent Research on CPS

14. Ideation and Problem Finding and Solving in
an Industrial Research Organization
• Focus: To study the transfer of training in a “complete
process of creative problem solving”.
• Participants: 220 engineers, engineering managers, and
technicians in a consumer goods industrial company.
• Training Program: Experimental group received two-days
of CPS training; control group received placebo treatment
(i.e., Koestler film & discussion), an additional group received
no training.
• Outcomes: Two weeks after training assessed transfer of the
CPS course to workplace (e.g., problem finding and problem
solving abilities, co-workers observations, supervisor ratings,
preferences for ideation, etc).
Basadur, Graen, & Green (1982).

15. Ideation and Problem Finding and Solving in
an Industrial Research Organization
Some Results
• Preference for ideation in problem solving increased significantly for
CPS trained group.
• Placebo and non-training group expressed significantly more negative
judgments and spent significantly more time on negative judgments
while engaged in a problem-finding task (i.e., explore wishes for new
products of the future).
• Quality of the product wishes of the CPS trained group was
significantly better than the placebo and untrained groups.
• Two-weeks after training others rated (blind assessment) the
experimental group as significantly more open-minded, less likely to
jump to conclusions, and able to take unusual approaches to problems.
• See Basadur et al. for further results
Basadur, Graen, & Green (1982).

16. Reducing Recidivism Among
Native Canadians
• Focus: To help at-risk populations make better
choices and life decisions.
• Participants: 31 inmates with matched control
group.
• Training Program: Pre-release program focused
on life-skills training (designed around CPS, M-F,
11 weeks) and job experience.
• Outcomes: Assessed recidivism rates one year
after completing job experience.
Place, McCluskey, McCluskey, &Treffigner, 2000.

17. Reducing Recidivism Among
Native Canadians
• More than 98% of
control group had
subsequent contact
with justice system
(blue column).
• Only 39% of
experimental group re-
offended (blue
column).

18. Gameplay Decisions Among
Badminton Players
• Focus: To determine the effect of CPS training on
game-play decisions.
• Participants: 24 physical education students,
participants matched on ability in experimental and
control groups.
• Training Program: Experimental group received three
10-minute mini-sessions and a 1.5 hour session on
CPS.
• Outcomes: Game-play video coded by ‘blind’
observers for tactical decisions.
Everhart, Kernodle, Turner, Harshaw, & Arnold, 1999.

19. Gameplay Decisions Among
Badminton Players - Results
• Statistical analysis of overall data for experimental and
control showed a significant difference in frequency of
decisions (tactics used).
• Analysis also revealed that the experimental group
made more quality decisions.
• Experimental group participants engaged in more
complex strategies.
• The most dramatic shift in tactics occurred after the
third 10-minute session and the fourth 1.5 hour CPS
session.
Everhart, Kernodle, Turner, Harshaw, & Arnold, 1999.

20. CPS & Communication Behaviors:
Quality of Ideas Generated
Quality Rating Untrained Trained
5 (best) 281 618
4 500 1342
3 352 917
2 253 648
1 (worst) 29 140
Firestien Unpublished

21. CPS & Communication Behaviors
Untrained Trained
Total Responses 26 39
Verbal Criticism 2.2 0.09
Verbal Support 1.4 3.7
Laughter 2.1 6.0
Smiles 2.6 6.7
Ideas Generated 13 27
Firestien & McCowan, 1988

22. Stimulants to Creative
Behavior Among Engineers
• Focus: To determine which management philosophies
and practices stimulate or inhibit creative behavior among
engineers.
• Participants: 242 engineers.
• Outcomes: Engineers asked to evaluate nine different
management practices for relevance to their work and the
degree to which they increases the possibility of being
more creative at work.
• Results: Project groups and Creative Problem Solving
methods had the most positive response (88% and 85%,
respectively).
Evkall, 2000.

23. Effects of CPS Training on
R&D Performance
• Focus: To assess the extent to which a complete
program in CPS would enhance performance at work.
• Participants: 106 R&D workers in experimental
group, 35 R&D workers in control group.
• Training Program: CPS training delivered over a
three-month period (18 hours total).
• Outcomes: Pre-post test measures administered for
creative-thinking ability and work performance (both
measured 6 to 11 months after training).
Wang & Horng, 2002.

24. Effects of CPS Training on
R&D Performance - Results
• Significant gains in creative-thinking abilities
(e.g., fluency & flexibility).
• Only one significant difference found for a
performance indicator. Experimental group
participants were involved in a greater number of
‘service’ projects (i..e, research projects based on
customer complaints or technical problems).
• Authors conclude that there was insufficient time
to see results on other performance measures (i.e.,
publications and reports).
Wang & Horng, 2002.

25. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space

26. World Creativity and Innovation Week Venue

27. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space

28. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space

29. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space
Excerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)

30. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space
Excerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)

31. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space
Excerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)

32. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space
Excerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)

33. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space
Excerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)

34. References
Basadur, M., Graen, g. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on
ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 41-70
Ekvall, G. (2000). Management and organizational philosophies and practices as stimulants or blocks to
creative behavior: A study of engineers. Creativity and Innovation Management, 9, 94-99.
Everhart, B., Kernodle, M., Turner, E., Harshaw, Cl, & Arnold, D. (1999). Gameplay decisions of
univesity badminton students . The Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 138-149.
Firestien, R. L., McCowan, R. J. (1988). Creative problem solving and communication behavior in small
groups. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 106-114.
Parnes, S. J. (1987). The creative studies project. In S. G. Isaksen (ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research:
Beyond the Basics (156-188). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1972). Applied creativity: The creative studies project: Part II – Results of
the two-year-program. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 164-186.
Place, D. J., McCluskey, A. L. A., McCluskey, K. W., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). The second chance
project: Creative approaches to developing the talents of at-risk native inmates. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 34, 164-186.
Wang, C. W., & Horng, R. Y. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving on creativity, cognitive type
and R&D performance. R&D Management, 32, 35-45.

35. Does Creativity Training Work?
A Meta-Analytic Study
(a must read for all creativity
educators & trainers)

36. Scott, Leritz & Mumford:
Purpose of Study
1. To provide reasonably compelling
evidence for the effectiveness of creativity
training
2. To identify the key characteristics of
training that led to the success of the
training efforts
(Scott, Leritz & Mumford, Creativity Research Journal, 2004, Vol 16, pp 361-388)

37. Criteria for Inclusion of Study
in the Meta-Analysis (n=70)
1. Expressed focus on creativity
2. Clear description of procedures used in training,
the population involved and the strategies
involved in training delivery.
3. Study provided an exact description of measures
used to assess creative performance.
4. Study provided statistics needed to assess effect
size.
5. If several studies used the same data, only one
publication was used.

38. Design of Studies
• Pre-test or posttest control group design
or
• Pre-test or posttest no control group design
(pre-tests used as baseline for comparison)

39. Dependent Variables
• Divergent thinking (e.g., fluency,
flexibility, originality, elaboration)
• Problem solving (e.g., production of
original solutions to novel problems)
• Performance (e.g., behavior)
• Attitudes and behavior (e.g., reaction to
creative ideas, efforts initiated)

40. External Validity Checks:
To What Extent do Training Effects
Generalize Across People & Settings
• Age (above and below 14 years of age)
• Setting (educational vs. organizational)
• Academic Achievement of participants
• Use of gifted sample
• Gender
• Year study was conduced (pre/post 1980)

41. Assessment of Course Content:
Foundational Models
• Cognitive models
• Social models
• Personality models
• Motivational models
• Confluence models (i.e., supplemented
cognitive models)
• Others (e.g., attitudes, blocks to creativity)

42. Assessment of Course Content:
Focus of Instructional Material
& Exercises
• Problem finding
• Information gathering
• Information organizing
• Conceptual combination
• Idea generation
• Idea evaluation
• Implementation planning
• Solution monitoring

43. Delivery Method
• Classroom Exercise
• Field exercises
• Group exercises
• Realistic, domain based, performance exercises
• Computer exercises
• Written exercises
• Self-paced exercises
• Imaginative exercises

44. Results: Impact on Dependent
Variables
Sizable change was found for all four
dependent variables, in the following order:
• Divergent thinking
• Problem solving
• Performance
• Attitudes and behavior

45. Results: Impact on Dependent
Variables
• “The largest effect sizes were obtained in studies
employing divergent thinking (∆=.75; SE=.11)
and problem solving (∆=.84, SE=.13) criteria” (p.
369).
• “Studies applying performance criteria yielded
smaller, albeit still sizable, effects (∆=.35;
SE=.11)” (p. 369).
• “Studies employing attitudes and behavior criteria
also produced sizable but somewhat weaker
effects (∆=.24; SE=.13)” (p. 369).

46. External Validity Results:
Training Effects Across People and
Settings
• “Not only does creativity training appear useful
in various settings and for different age groups,
the value of this training holds for populations
who differ in their intellectual capabilities” (p.
370).
• “Studies that were based on a predominantly
male sample yielded larger effects (∆=1.14;
SE=.26 vs. ∆=.42; SE=.26) than studies based
on a predominantly female sample” (p. 370).

47. Internal Validity Results:
Does Lack of Rigor Inflate Training Effects
• Study quality: Educational level of author made little
difference on the effect of training; peer reviewed studies
showed larger effects sizes.
• Length of Follow-up: Studies using longer posttest
intervals showed same sizable effects as shorter intervals.
• Author as Trainer: No difference found for studies in
which the author was the trainer versus third-party studies.

48. Course Content:
Examination of Training Models
“In the overall analysis, use of a cognitive
framework in the development of training content
produced the only sizable positive correlation
(r=.31) and regression weight (ß=.24). This
general conclusion held across all criteria.”
(p. 376)

49. Course Content:
What Aspects of Cognitive Models are Most
Effective
Program success was related to:
– Problem identification (r=.37)
– Idea generation (r=.21)
– Implementation planning (r=.19)
– Solution monitoring (r=.17)
– Conceptual combination (r=.16)

50. Course Content:
Other Factors that Led to Positive Outcomes
• Aspect of training associated with positive
outcomes included:
– Practice time
– Longer training time
– Lecture based instruction
– Social modeling
– Cooperative learning
– Case-based learning techniques

51. Conclusions
“Perhaps the most clear-cut
conclusion to emerge from this study
is that creativity training is effective.”
(p. 381)

52. Conclusions
“The results obtained in this study indicate that
well-designed training can evidence substantial
external validity. Creativity training
contributed to divergent thinking, problem
solving, performance, and attitudes and
behavior for younger and older students and
working adults, and for high achieving and
more ‘run of the mill’ students”. (p. 382)

53. Conclusions
“Taken as a whole, these observations lead to a
relatively unambiguous conclusion. Creativity
training works”. (p. 382)
(Scott, Leritz & Mumford, Creativity Research Journal, 2004, Vol 16, pp 361-388)

54. Recommendations:
Best Practices for Creativity Training
• Training should be based on sound, valid,
conceptions of the cognitive activities underlying the
creative process.
• Training should be lengthy and relatively
challenging.
• Articulation of creativity principles should be
followed by application using material based on real-
world cases.
• Presentation of material should be followed by
exercises that allow participants to apply strategies