想得多是想得好的前提嗎？探討發散性思考能力在創意問題解決的角色

Is the More the Better? The Role of Divergent Thinking in Creative Problem Solving

10.6129/CJP.2005.4703.02

林緯倫(Wei-Lun Lin)；連韻文(Yunn-Wen Lien)；任純慧(Chun-Hui Jen)

2-4-6問題 ； 假設產出 ； 發散性思考 ； 頓悟問題 ； 創造力 ； 2-4-6 problem ； hypothesis generation ； divergent thinking ； insight problem ； creativity

中華心理學刊

47卷3期（2005 / 09 / 01）

211 - 227

繁體中文

發散性思考與創意問題解決能力是創造力歷程研究中兩個主要的研究重點，但由於所用的測驗或問題情境不同而未曾有研究探討其間關係。本研究回顧此兩大研究取向，並指出發現作業（246作業）具頓悟問題特色，並以個體在假設產出階段的表現作為創意指標，探究上述兩種能力間的關係。實驗一檢驗以發現作業中假設產出特色作為創造力指標的適當性，結果獲得支持，根據創造力連結理論(Mednick，1962)所定義的高創造力者比低創造力者在發現作業中顯著產生較多的新角度假設；且新角度假設數和能否成功解決問題顯著相關。實驗二則顯示發散性思考能力的高低和新角度假設的產生，以及與能否成功解決創意問題並無相關，甚至和連結理論所預測的遠距聯想能力呈顯著負相關。文中深入討論發散性思考能力是解決創意問題的前提（亦即想得多是想得好的前提）或是兩者屬於不同創造力。

It is often thought that divergent thinking is the base for solving problem creatively, for the more ideas an individual generates, the more likely he will hit the answer. This idea however has never been tested empirically, partly due to a lack of measurable index regarding the creativity of hypothesis generation. The current research therefore aimed at 1) defining an index featuring creativity in hypothesis generation; 2) investigating the relation between divergent thinking and creativity in problem solving, which has been reframed as a process of generating and revising hypotheses to reach a goal by many researchers. The authors argued that the ”2 4 6 problem”, a rule discovery task which had long been regarded as a task involving inductive reasoning, could be regarded as an insight problem from the perspective of hypothesis generation, and therefore suitable for representing creativity in problem solving. Since many subjects who failed to discover the correct rule in ”2 4 6 problem” were due to lack of perspective shifting while generating hypothesis, the authors therefore proposed that how different a new hypothesis is from the previous ones could serve as an useful index for creativity in problem solving. New-perspective hypotheses only referred to those hypotheses that located in different branches at the most and the second most abstract levels of the tree diagram composed of all the hypotheses generated in the ”2 4 6 problem” by all the 8lsubjects in the current research. Experiment 1 aimed at justifying the new index by establishing its relation with the association theory of creativity (Mednick, 1962). A Lexical Decision Task (LDT) was designed to measure the different abilities of remote association, indicated by the differences in priming effect between strong- and weak-associated word pairs. The results of 81 subjects from National Taiwan University showed that remote association ability significantly correlated with the generation of new-perspective hypotheses in ”2 4 6 problem”, which then predicted the solving of the problem. Experiment 2 then investigated whether the ability of divergent thinking would predict the creativity in hypothesis generation represented by the new-established index as well as the success in problem solving. The same group of subjects performed a Chinese version of Divergent Thinking Test (Wu, 1998) a week from Experiment 1. The results showed the scores of divergent thinking test predicted neither the creativity in hypothesis generation nor the success rate of solving the ”2 4 6 problem”. Implications for distinguishing creativity required by art creation and scientific discovery as well as for enhancing creativity were discussed.

1. 林緯倫、連韻文(2001)。如何能發現隱藏的規則？從科學資優生表現的特色，探索提升規則發現能力的方法。科學教育學刊，9(3)，299-322。
   連結：
2. Amabile, T. M.(1983).The social psychology of creativity.New York:Springer-Verlag.
3. Brophy, D. R.(1998).Creativity Research Journal.
4. Campbell, D. T.(1960).Psychological Review.
5. Chi, M. T. H.(1997).Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes.Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
6. Clapham, M. M.(1996).Educational and Psychological Measurement.
7. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
8. Coney, J.,Serna, P.(1995).Journal of Creative Behavior.
9. Cropley, A. J.(1992).More ways than one: Fostering creativity.Norwood, NJ:Atherton.
10. Dominowski, R. L.(1995).The creative cognition approach.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
11. Dunbar, K.(1997).Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes.Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
12. Esyenck, H. J.(1993).Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry.
13. Facaoaru, C.(1985).Creativity in science and technology.Bern:Huber.
14. Finke, R. A.,Ward, TB,Smith, S. M.(1992).Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
15. Gough, H. G.(1976).Journal of Applied Psychology.
16. Guilford, J. P.(1963).Proceedings of the 1962 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems.Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
17. Guilford, J. P.(1956).Psychological Bulletin.
18. Joy, S.(2001).Journal of Creative Behavior.
19. Kasof J.(1997).Creativity Research Journal.
20. Klayman, J.,Ha. Y-W(1989).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition.
21. Klayman, J.,Ha. Y-W(1987).Psychological Review.
22. Kuhn, T. S.(1970).The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
23. Langley, P., Simon, H. A.,Bradshaw, G. L.,Zytkow, J. M.(1987).Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative process.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
24. Lin, W-L,Lien, Y-W(2004).The influence of memory load on different creativity tasks.Beijing:
25. Martindale, C.(1995).The creative cognition approach.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
26. Mednick, S. A.(1962).Psychological Review.
27. Mednick, S. A.,Mednick, M. T.(1967).Examiner`s Manual: Remote Association Test.Boston:Houghton-Mifflin.
28. Meyer, L. B.(1974).Critical Inquiry.
29. Milgram, R. M,Rabkin, L.(1980).Developmental Psychology.
30. Nickerson, R. S.(1999).Handbook of creativity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
31. Oaksford, M,Chater, N.(1994).Another look at eliminative and enumerative behavior in a conceptual task.
32. Okuda, S. M.,Runco, M. A.,Berger, D. E.(1991).Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.
33. Osborn, A.(1953).Applied imagination.New York:Scribner`s.
34. Osborn, A.(1963).Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking.New York:Scribner`s.
35. Parloff, M. D.,Handlon, J. H.(1964).Psychiatry.
36. Perkins, D. N.(1990).Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instructions.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
37. Platt, J. R.(1964).Science.
38. Plucker, J. A.,Renzulli, J. S.(1999).Handbook of creativity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
39. Rickards, T. J.(1994).Nurturing anti developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline.Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
40. S. M., Ward, T. B.,Finke, R. A.(1995).The Creative Cognition Approach.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
41. Simonton, D. K.(1989).Psychology of science.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
42. Smith, GJW,Carlsson, I,Sandstrom S.(1985).Psychological Research Bulletin.
43. Smith, GJW,Danielsson A.(1978).Psychological Research Bulletin.
44. Smith, S. M.,Blankenship, S. E.(1991).American Journal of Psychology.
45. Stent, G. S.(2001).The origins of creativity.New York:Oxford University Press.
46. Stent, G. S.(1972).Scientific American.
47. Sternberg R. J.,Lubart, T. I.(1996).American Psychologist.
48. Sternberg, R. J.,Kaufman, J. C.,Pretz, J. E.(2001).Journal of Creative Behavior.
49. Sternberg, R. J.,Lubart, T. I.(1999).Handbook of creativity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
50. Torrance, E. P.(1988).The nature of creativity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
51. Torrance, E. P.(1966).Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual.Princeton, N. J:Personnel Press, Inc.
52. Tukey, D. D.(1986).Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
53. Tweney, R. D.,Doherty, M. E.,Worner, W. J.,Pliske, D. B.,Mynatt, C. R.,Gross, K. A.,Arkkelin, D. L.(1980).Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
54. Vartanian, O.,Martindale, C.,Kwiatkowski, J.(2003).Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
55. Wagner, C.(1996).Journal of Creative Behavior.
56. Wallach, M. A.,Kogan, N.(1965).Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity and intelligence distinction.New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
57. Wallas, G.(1926).The art of thought.New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
58. Ward, T. B.,Smith, S. M.,Finke, R. A.(1999).Handbook of creativit.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
59. Wason, P. C.(1960).Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
60. Wason, P. C.(1977).Thinking: Readings in cognitive science.Cambridge, NY:Cambridge University Press.
61. Weisberg, R. W.(1995).The creative cognition approach.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
62. Weisberg, R. W.(1993).Creativity.New York:Freeman.
63. 吳庭瑜、吳明樺、洪瑞雲(1998)。合作學習、解釋及發問架構提示對歸納推理表現之影響。中華心理學刊，40(2)，117-136。
64. 吳靜吉(1998)。新編創造思考測驗研究
65. 李秀瓊(1999)。台北，國立台灣大學心理學研究所。
66. 洪振方(1998)。科學創造力之探討。高雄師大學報，9，289-302。
67. 陳妍靜、連韻文(2002)。合作如何幫助假設檢驗作業之表現？。台南:
68. 陳學志(1999)。認知及認知的自我監控－中文詞聯想常模的建立。
69. 葉玉珠(2001)。國小中高年級學童科技創造力發展與其主要影響生態系統之動態關係。國家科學委員會NSC90-2511-S-110-006。

1. 蔡秉勳、林緯倫、林烘煜(2013)。心情對了，創意就來了－情緒對發散性思考與頓悟問題解決的不同影響。教育心理學報，45(1)，19-38。
2. 蔡秉勳、劉珈妤、林緯倫(2016)。對的風格遇上對的人，謂之創意─人格特質、認知風格與兩類創造力之關係探討。教育心理學報，48(2)，211-228。
3. 陳學志、張雨霖、徐芝君、邱發忠、林耀南(2018)。頓悟性問題解決規則教導與效果評估。教育心理學報，50(2)，219-241。
4. 陳彥廷、柳賢(2009)。中學生對代數式中文字符號之語意理解研究：不同管道的探討。科學教育學刊，17(1)，1-25。
5. 洪瑞雲、拾已寰、李泊諺、王精文、王愉敏(2013)。以概念結合理論為基礎的想像力測驗之編製。測驗學刊，60(4)，681-713。
6. 黃博聖,陳學志,陳姵臻,林緯倫(2020)。青少年封閉式創造力潛能測量：「青少年版中文詞彙遠距聯想測驗」之編製及信、效度研究。測驗學刊，67(3)，167-190。
7. 黃博聖,陳學志,陳姵臻,張雨霖,林緯倫,吳清麟(2021)。中文版遠距聯想測驗在創造力研究之應用：回顧與展望。教育實踐與研究，34(1)，1-44。
8. 王佳琪(2020)。科學想像力圖形測驗之驗證。教育心理學報，51(3)，341-367。
9. 謝甫佩、洪振方(2008)。以結構方程模式驗證影響國二學生科學思考因素之理論模式。科學教育學刊，16(6)，563-584。
10. 顏妙璇(2012)。客觀與新角度推理能力對科學學習的影響。中等教育，63(1)，146-159。
11. 櫻井正二郎,黃榮村,汪曼穎(2019)。台灣實驗認知心理學發展選論：以台大心理學系為框架。中華心理學刊，61(4)，295-319。
12. 游政男(2019)。透過行動載具輔助紀錄片初學者之教學設計：以社區探索紀錄片為例。傳播研究與實踐，9(1)，33-64。
13. 游政男、高台茜(2018)。發展青少年以紀錄片形式參與社會教學模組之設計。教育實踐與研究，31(1)，113-144。
14. (2007)。台灣創造力教育研究之回顧。教育曙光，55(3)，47-59。
15. (2023)。國英雙語平衡程度對臺灣大學生執行功能與兩類創造力表現的影響。教育科學研究期刊，68(4)，191-225。