CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsDesign Education and Practice

How to Guard Against Fixation? Demonstrating Individual Vulnerability is More Effective Than Warning of General Risk

Open access
Neroni, Maria Adriana, Crilly, Nathan·2021·The Journal of Creative Behavior
DOI 10.1002/jocb.465
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Creative behavior can be inhibited by fixation and so reducing fixation is a focus of much creativity research. One of the most common methods of tackling fixation is to warn people of fixation risks and instruct them to avoid constrained problem framing and solution search. However, such treatments are often ineffective. One possible explanation for this is that people typically believe that they (as individuals) are less vulnerable to a specified risk than other people are (in general). If we really want to motivate people to guard against a risk, we need to demonstrate that they, as individuals, are vulnerable to those risks. To study the effect of demonstrating individual vulnerability to fixation, we conducted an online experimental study using number and word tasks that both included a fixation "trap." The first task was used to provide a "demonstrated vulnerability" treatment (revealing participants' own fixated behavior) to the experimental group. This group outperformed those who received a comparable "asserted vulnerability" treatment (a warning about general fixation effects) and also those in a control group. Researchers and practitioners developing creativity training and tools aimed at reducing fixation effects should consider the benefits of demonstrating individual vulnerability to fixation rather than, or in combination with, issuing warnings that people in general are vulnerable to fixation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jocb.465

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Uncovering participants' fixation tendencies ('demonstrated vulnerability') is an effective approach that can strengthen participants' ability to overcome fixation.

    “Further, Neroni and Crilly [46] state that uncovering participants' fixation tendencies, which they call”

    From The Effects of Generative AI on Design Fixation and Divergent Thinking (2024) · cites this paper as [46]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Demonstrating Individual Vulnerability to Fixation 21626057, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.465, Wiley Online Library on [15/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
  2. Martini, M.C. (2018). Mitigation Strategies for Design Fixation. George Mason University. PhD Dissertation. Department of Psychol- ogy, George Mason University.
  3. Sagarin, B.J., & Mitnick, K.D. (2012). The path of least resistance. Six degrees of social influence: Science, application, and the psychol- ogy of Robert Cialdini. New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Smith, S.M. (1995). Getting into and out of mental ruts: A theory of fixation, incubation, and insight. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 229-251). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  5. Maria Adriana Neroni, Nathan Crilly, The University of Cambridge UK Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nathan Crilly, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK. E-mail: nc266@cam.ac.uk NOTE

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Neroni, M. A., & Crilly, N.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Crilly, Nathan
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Creative Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-07-23
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
447-463
ISSN
  • 0022-0175 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-6057
DOI
10.1002/jocb.465
OpenAlex
W3044682446
Cited by
8
References
83
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Journal of Creative Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo
Funders
UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K008196/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
Keywords
fixation, creativity, individual susceptibility, risk warning, problem framing, solution search, creativity training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review