Cited by 99Design Education and PracticeCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Providing Timely Examples Improves the Quantity and Quality of Generated Ideas

Siangliulue, Pao, Chan, Joel, Gajos, Krzysztof Z., Dow, Steven P.·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition

Abstract

Emerging online ideation platforms with thousands of example ideas provide an important resource for creative production. But how can ideators best use these examples to create new innovations? Recent work has suggested that not just the choice of examples, but also the timing of their delivery can impact creative outcomes. Building on existing cognitive theories of creative insight, we hypothesize that people are likely to benefit from examples when they run out of ideas. We explore two example delivery mechanisms that test this hypothesis: 1) a system that proactively provides examples when a user appears to have run out of ideas, and 2) a system that provides examples when a user explicitly requests them. Our online experiment (N=97) compared these two mechanisms against two baselines: providing no examples and automatically showing examples at a regular interval. Participants who requested examples themselves generated ideas that were rated the most novel by external evaluators. Participants who received ideas automatically when they appeared to be stuck produced the most ideas. Importantly, participants who received examples at a regular interval generated fewer ideas than participants who received no examples, suggesting that mere access to examples is not sufficient for creative inspiration. These results emphasize the importance of the timing of example delivery. Insights from this study can inform the design of collective ideation support systems that help people generate many high quality ideas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2757226.2757230

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siangliulue, P., Chan, J., Gajos, K. Z., & Dow, S. P.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-06-22
Pages
83-92
OpenAlex
W2144569346
Cited by
99
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
FWCI
26.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Creativity and Cognition (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (IIS-1208382, IIS-1217096)
  • Google
  • Adobe Systems
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
idea generation, creative insight, idea novelty, artistic inspiration

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