Source monitoring in a generative task

Landau, Joshua D.; Thomas, D.; Thelen, Sarah E.; Chang, Pengkwei

doi:10.1080/09658210143000326

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, when the activation of common knowledge was reinforced by the presentation of possible solutions belonging to the fixation path, participants proposed fewer, less original solutions. This finding is in agreement with several previous works, and confirms that recently activated knowledge can strongly constrain the ability to generate creative solutions (Jansson & Smith, 1991;Landau & Leynes, 2004;Landau et al, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Two independent experimenters noted whether the subjects' drawings contained any of the previously viewed elements. The results showed that participants tended to incorporate these elements into their own drawings, despite an explicit warning to avoid replicating features given in the examples (see also Jansson & Smith, 1991;Landau & Leynes, 2004;Landau, Thomas, Thelen, & Chang, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of Type of Examples on Originality: Explaining Fixation and Stimulation Effects

Agogué

Kazakçı

Hatchuel

et al. 2013

Journal of Creative Behavior

137

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are obstacles to creativity: one of them is called fixation effect, the fact that some knowledge about existing or obvious solutions is spontaneously activated and constrains the generation of new solutions. Converging evidence in cognitive psychology has indicated that the ability to generate original ideas can be limited by recently activated knowledge, such as examples of solutions. On the other hand, neuroimaging studies have recently demonstrated that exposure to examples could, on the contrary, have a stimulating effect on originality. To make sense of what seems to be contradictory studies, we hypothesized that two types of examples could have opposite effects on originality: (1) restrictive examples-within the fixation effect-could lead to a reduction in the originality of the solutions, whereas (2) expansive examples-outside the fixation effect-could provoke solutions of higher originality. Results from a total of 160 participants confirmed that the solutions proposed by the group exposed to restrictive examples were less original than those given by the group exposed to expansive examples.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Type of Examples on Originality: Explaining Fixation and Stimulation Effects

Agogué

Kazakçı

Hatchuel

et al. 2013

Journal of Creative Behavior

137

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stronger admonitions came from Smith et al (1993), who told their participants that the examples "restrict people's creativity" and to "please generate ideas as different as possible from the examples given" (p. 843). Landau, Thomas, Thelen, and Chang (2002) told participants in one condition not to copy the examples and "that a plagiarism expert would be reviewing their creatures to determine if they had used features from the examples" (p. 190). Only the last set of directions resulted in a substantial reduction in conformity.…”

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Elsewhere, we have argued that people conform to experimenter-provided examples because it is difficult for them to avoid using certain types of information when engaged in the creative process (e.g., Landau, et al, 2002;Marsh, et al, 1996;. As people create novel entities, details of the examples come to mind when they are selecting features for their novel inventions.…”

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conformity to Experimenter‐Provided Examples: Will People use an Unusual Feature?

Landau

Lehr

2004

Journal of Creative Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Undergraduates studied nonword exemplars and then created their own novel nonwords. In Experiment 1, people studied legal or illegal nonwords. In Experiment 2, people studied illegal nonwords, but to increase awareness of the features, half of the participants assessed the features of the nonwords. Despite instructions to avoid copying any aspect of the examples, people incorporated features from the examples into their own novel creations. Although people do not spontaneously create illegal nonwords, those people that studied illegal nonwords were more likely to create illegal nonwords. Assessing the features of the examples did not reduce the likelihood that people would copy features of the examples. We discuss these results in the context of Ward's (1994) structured imagination account.

show abstract

“…Thus, exposure to psychology course material is not a panacea for correcting inaccurate beliefs. When people engage these extended retrieval processes, they are less likely to commit a multitude of memory errors (e.g., Landau, Thomas, Thelen, & Chang, 2002;Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1997;Multhaup, 1995). When people engage these extended retrieval processes, they are less likely to commit a multitude of memory errors (e.g., Landau, Thomas, Thelen, & Chang, 2002;Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1997;Multhaup, 1995).…”

Section: York College Of Pennsylvaniamentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty Forum

2003

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides commentary on a recent survey (Levy & Peters, 2002) of students' views of the characteristics of the "best" college courses. Levy and Peters's study and conclusions were limited to only certain aspects of faculty, course, and student characteristics that students recognize are relevant when evaluating their academic experiences. Their results may be interpreted to promote a student-as-consumer model of higher education. I present results of a qualitative study to explicate the breadth of issues that should be considered when studying the impact of higher education on undergraduate students.The ongoing debate over the validity and utility of students' evaluations of teaching (reflects, to some degree, a struggle between the consumer or customer model of education and the view that students need and deserve to be challenged to succeed in college. A recent article in Teaching of Psychology (Levy & Peters, 2002) provided a new twist in this debate. Levy and Peters constructed and used a 24-item instrument to measure the characteristics students believed described the "best" college courses. They found that students endorsed courses that had a comfortable atmosphere, interesting content, and reviews before exams. Students preferred professors who had a sense of humor, were excited about the material, were entertaining, had a caring attitude, employed a variety of teaching techniques, communicated well, were not arrogant, were fair and approachable, and made students feel smart. Additionally, students preferred courses in which they received the grade they deserved and received a good grade. Levy and Peters reported that students did not prefer easy courses, did not prefer to give class presentations, and gave low ratings for courses that did not have in-class activities. Furthermore, students rated professors poorly when the instructor solely lectured and when professors asked students questions during class.Although the results presented by Levy and Peters offer some insights into certain aspects of student attitudes toward their instructors and courses, their methodology and interpretations are limited and problematic. First, the questionnaire and items failed to assess certain issues that may affect students' views of higher education, namely the quality of course information; the degree to which professors challenge students to demonstrate their understanding of, and their ability to make use of, such information; and the manner in

show abstract

Source monitoring in a generative task

Cited by 13 publications

References 31 publications

The Impact of Type of Examples on Originality: Explaining Fixation and Stimulation Effects

The Impact of Type of Examples on Originality: Explaining Fixation and Stimulation Effects

Conformity to Experimenter‐Provided Examples: Will People use an Unusual Feature?

Faculty Forum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About