Content uploaded by Charlotte P. Malycha
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charlotte P. Malycha on May 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 1
Running head: MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT
The Random-Map Technique
Enhancing Mind-Mapping with a Conceptual Combination Technique to foster Creative
Potential
Charlotte P. Malycha
Günter W. Maier
Bielefeld University, Germany
Corresponding author
Charlotte P. Malycha
Bielefeld University
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology,
P. O. Box 100131, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 2
Abstract
Although creativity techniques are highly recommended in working environments, their effects
have been scarcely investigated. Two cognitive processes are often considered to foster creative
potential and are therefore taken as a basis for creativity techniques: knowledge activation and
conceptual combination. In the present study both processes were enhanced individually and jointly
with an appropriate technique. Knowledge activation was fostered by the mind-map technique and
conceptual combination by the random-input technique. The random-map technique evolved from
merging these two techniques together. The two different techniques were tested in a 2x2 factorial
experimental design with 80 participants. It was assumed that (a) both individual techniques would
enhance creative potential when compared to the control group, and (b) the combined technique would
lead to more creative potential than implementing the techniques individually. Results showed an
increased creativity level of each of the individual techniques when compared to the control group.
The combined creativity technique resulted in even higher creativity level when compared to both
individual techniques. Thus, fostering different creativity processes jointly had an additive effect on
creative potential.
Keywords: mind-map technique, random-input technique, combined creativity technique, creative
potential, TTCT
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 3
The Random-Map Technique: Enhancing Mind-Mapping with a Conceptual Combination Technique
to foster Creative Potential
What does soccer have to do with a ballpoint pen? The story goes that the “trace” of the wet soccer
ball rolling on asphalt inspired the invention of the ballpoint pen. As in this case, many creative
inventions are the result of combining two concepts that normally seem to have nothing in common.
This process is even more beneficial if it rests on broader knowledge because creativity never arises in
a vacuum (Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon, & Doares, 1991). Hence, to foster creative
potential purposefully, these two processes – the activation of knowledge and the combination of
concepts - should be taken into account as each of them is highly relevant for creative potential (Ma,
2006, Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004a). Despite the multitude of techniques which aim to enhance
the creative potential of their users, techniques fostering different creative processes have rarely been
combined purposefully (see Scott et al., 2004a; Smith, 1998), nor have they been adequately subjected
to empirical testing (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Puccio, Firestien, Coyle, & Masucci, 2006). Filling
this research gap by experimentally examining the effects of two commonly used creativity techniques
was one of the purposes of the present study. To enhance knowledge activation, the mind-map
technique (Buzan & Buzan, 2010) was used as it fosters associational thinking by externalizing
complex thoughts and relations on the map (see Akinoglu & Zeynep, 2007; Brahm, 2013; Nesbit &
Adesope, 2006). To enhance conceptual combination, the random-input technique (de Bono, 1992)
was applied as it “forces” the users to think in unusual ways by connecting elements from different
semantic domains (Kohn, Paulus, & Korde, 2011).
Another aim of the present study was to find out whether the beneficial influence of the mind-map
technique on creative problem-solving (Malycha & Maier, 2012) can further be enhanced by
combining it with the random-input technique under the assumption that it would intensify the
combination of unrelated concepts. This newly formed random-map technique was meant to enhance
its users’ knowledge base (like the mind-map technique) and encourage them to combine their
knowledge in a superior way (like the random-input technique). Seen from a conceptual perspective of
creative problem-solving, the random-map technique combines two important processes for producing
(a) a multitude of ideas, (b) highly diverse ideas, and (c) highly original ideas. Thus, the new
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 4
technique should be particularly helpful whenever new and extraordinary solutions are needed,
whenever the problem situation seems to be vague and fuzzy, and whenever an individual has no ad
hoc creative idea(s).
Fostering creative potential
Creativity is defined as "the ability to reorganize the available knowledge, information, cues, facts
and/or skills in a person's reservoir to generate new ideas or useful solutions" (Ma, 2009, p. 39). Ward,
Smith, and Finke (1999) stated that creativity is not a mysterious leap of faith but a result of
underlying cognitive processes such as remote association, or conceptual combination (see Smith &
Ward, 2012). Thus, many observed differences in creative potential can be explained by differences in
the use and intensity of application of certain cognitive processes of each individual (Nickerson, 1999;
Ward et al., 1999). Although no fixed set of cognitive operations or procedures is common for all
creative activities, the combination of different concepts and the generation of many ideas - which in
turn is favored by knowledge activation and reorganization (Mumford, Baughman, Supinski, &
Maher, 1996) - are often considered in research literature of creativity trainings (Mumford, Antes,
Caughron, Connelly, & Beeler, 2010; Smith & Ward, 2012). In their meta-analysis of the effectiveness
of creativity trainings, Scott et al. (2004a) found that idea generation and conceptual combination
were, besides the identification of the problem, the main factors that contributed most to training
effects. However, as problem identification only had small effects of .34 in Ma's (2006) meta-analysis,
the focus of the present study lay on fostering conceptual combination and idea generation through
knowledge activation. These processes and their specific trainings are regarded in detail in the
following.
Idea generation through knowledge activation. Knowledge is an important and essential part of
the creative process (see Mumford et al., 2010; Smith & Ward, 2012; Weisberg, 1999) as it forms the
basis for subsequent processes (Mumford et al., 1991). Weisberg (1999) even assumed that creative
thinking can be understood as a process based on the direct application of knowledge. An extended
period of knowledge activation is thus a prerequisite for enhanced creative problem-solving (see e.g.,
Ma, 2006; Ward, 1995; Weisberg, 1999).
The importance of knowledge for creative potential has been demonstrated in many cases. Rich and
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 5
Weisberg (2004) showed that highly creative products are often built on previous work and that new
work can often be seen as an extension and synthesis of existing works that the creator already knew.
In other studies, creative potential in science was found to be related to the use of systematic and more
extensive search strategies during knowledge activation (Kulkani & Simon, 1988; Qin & Simon,
1990). Mumford et al. (1996) found that the time spent on working with certain types of information
was an effective predictor of performance on creative problem-solving tasks in terms of quality and
originality. Moreover, Hunter, Bedell-Avers, Hunsicker, Mumford, and Ligon’s (2008) showed that
the number and quality of generated ideas were highest when people were encouraged to apply
associational knowledge because they activated more aspects of knowledge. It is important to note that
not only the amount of information influences one's creative potential, but the quality of information
used is also important for further creative thoughts (Mumford, Baughman, & Sager, 2003). Mumford
and colleagues (1996) found that it is more useful to engage in a wide-ranging search for pertinent
facts or relevant information than searching in terms of given goals or apparent restrictions. To initiate
such a wide-ranging search, idea generation techniques such as the mind-map technique can be used
(Smith, 1998).
Mind-map technique. As a a multi-sensory tool using visuospatial orientation to integrate,
organize, or to retain information (d’Antoni, Zipp, & Olson, 2009), mind maps have a widespread
field of application because they support the activation of knowledge. Its application is recommended
in areas in which divergent and associative thinking are particularly important (Buzan & Buzan,
2010). According to its inventors, Buzan and Buzan (2010), a mind-map has the following features:
The main issue is reflected in a central image or term. Starting from this central image, ideas spread
out in a hierarchical or tree branch format. Each branch contains only one key word written in printed
characters. Subordinate ideas are written on thinner branches, which are connected with the higher
level ones. Thus, all branches form a structure of interconnected nodes.
Buzan and Buzan (2010) and previous studies (see Malycha & Maier, 2012) presented the mind-
map technique as a structuring method that ensures the integration of diverse knowledge aspects into a
coherent pattern. The following arguments provide additional support to the hypothesis that the mind-
map technique fosters creative potential: Using mind-maps helps to locate a large body of knowledge
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 6
in a relatively small area (Huba & Freed, 2000). In this small area both the general framework and the
details of the problem are visualized simultaneously (Akinoglu & Yasar, 2007). Subsequently added
ideas can be integrated in such a way that thematically similar ideas can be found next to each other.
This strong focus on structural relationships in a mind-map fosters the organization of the problem and
highlights the relatedness of various concepts and thus facilitates cognitive activities (Hardy
& Stadelhofer, 2006; Nesbit & Adesope, 2006; Ruiz-Primo, Schultz, Li, & Shavelson, 2001). The
organization of the mind-map is further enhanced because it includes only the most essential
information; the mind-map's explicit construction rules oblige the user to note only the keywords on
the map. Crucial aspects are therefore perceptible and can easily be combined (Hardy & Stadelhofer,
2006; Renkl & Nückles, 2006). Like other visualization techniques, mind-mapping enhances
processing depths and elaboration of the problem domain (Hardy & Stadelhofer, 2006; Renkl &
Nückles, 2006). Due to its strong differentiation of branches and its suspended judgment, the user
elaborates more ideas and aspects (see Mumford et al., 1991; Osborn, 1963). Spreading activation
through semantic networks remains an influential explanation for how divergent thinking happens
(Runco, 2007). Buzan and Buzan (2010) argued that mind-maps, with their network like structure(s),
are like cognitive networks and that similar processes such as spreading activation can take place
while mind-mapping (see Bower, 2008; Collins & Loftus, 1975; Tehan, 2010): Subordinate branches
have to correspond only with the next higher one. Thus, the more layers that are integrated into a map,
the more diverse the sub-branches become.
Although, mind-maps are commonly and widely used, they have been scarcely the focus of
scientific investigations. A recent study examined the effect of the mind-map technique on creative
problem-solving and found that it is beneficial for creative thinking because it fostered the quantity
and the variety of ideas that were developed (Malycha & Maier, 2012). One of the aims of the present
study is to replicate this study.
Conceptual Combination. Conceptual combination refers to the ability to combine two or more
existing concepts to create new ones (Gill & Dubé, 2007). The combination and reorganization of
extant knowledge structure play an important role in creative thought as it may lead to new
understandings (Mumford et al., 1991; Mumford, Baughman, Maher, Costanza, & Supinski, 1997;
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 7
Scott, Lonergan, & Mumford, 2005). Conceptual combination is effective in provoking originality
because it is likely to result in the emergence of ideas that are not strongly associated with either of the
"parent" concepts (Smith & Ward, 2012).
The importance of conceptual combination is emphasized by two fundamental theories of
creativity: In his associative theory, Mednick (1962) defined “the creative thinking process as the
forming of associative elements into new combinations which either meet specified requirements or
are in some way useful” (p. 221). Any ability or tendency that brings mutually remote ideas into
contiguity will facilitate a creative solution. The more mutually remote the elements are, the more
creative the new combination will be. In his well-known work Act of Creation, Koestler (1964)
introduced the term bisociation, which referrers to the creative combination of incompatible aspects,
images, or imaginations from different points of view. Koestler’s fundamental idea is that any creative
act is not only an association but a bisociation of two or more apparently incompatible frames of
thoughts. Techniques based on these theories have led to creative breakthroughs such as the invention
of the telephone by combining the inner working of an ear and the movement of a stout piece of
membrane (Siau, 1996).
Nonetheless, only a few empirical studies have actually examined how and the extent to which
conceptual combination influences creative thought (Dahl & Moreau, 2002; Smith, 1998). In their
meta-analysis, Scott et al. (2004a) found that conceptual combination is one of the most important
factors for creativity. In another study, Scott et al.’s (2005) found that conceptual combination
contributed to the production of higher quality, more original, and more elegant ideas. The more
discrepant the separate concepts were, the more likely the formation of new and original ideas would
take place (e.g., Estes & Ward, 2002; Mobley, Doares, & Mumford, 1992; Wilkenfeld & Ward, 2001)
- possibly because discrepancy forced people to attempt to resolve the contradiction between the
component terms (Baughman & Mumford, 1995). One technique fostering conceptual combination is
the random-input technique.
Random-input technique. As an analogical or lateral thinking method, the random-input technique
was developed by de Bono (1992). This technique was created to combine concepts that normally do
not fit together. Instead of continuing to move in familiar ways, thoughts are guided into new
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 8
directions to develop ideas that would never have come to mind through logical thinking or analytical
processes (Rosenthal, Morrison, & Perry, 1977). In the path-of-least-resistance theory, Ward (1995)
assumed that people developing new ideas tend to begin by retrieving highly representative
knowledge, that is, the path of least resistance. The random-input technique forces the user to take
another, more challenging path, which may lead to more original ideas and more flexible uses of
conceptual knowledge (Smith & Ward, 2012).
The technique is to be applied in a three step process: The first step is to randomly elicit a stimulus
(e.g., a word, a picture, or even a sound) from any source, for example a dictionary, to diverts one’s
attention away from the obvious solutions. The lesser the stimulus fits to the problem at hand, the
higher its creative potential. The second step is to list attributes or associations to the stimulus without
considering the problem. The last step is to apply or transfer these attributes or associations to the
problem.
Some authors (e.g., de Bono, 1992; VanGundy, 1988), have argued that stimuli that are unrelated
to the problem are best able to inspire rare insights or eureka effects that are "truly creative" (Smith,
1998, p. 125). Thus, the random-input technique pertains to methods of thought-provocation (de Bono,
1992). Although, the random stimulus has nothing in common with the task, its complex bundle of
features, concepts, details, and associations can be used to distract from the task and discourage the
use of well-trodden paths (Smith, 1998).
Like the mind-map technique, the random-input technique has not been the focus of researchers.
The two studies which were conducted directly with the random-input technique showed opposite
effects: Svensson, Norlander, and Archer (2002) found that the random-input technique did not show
any benefit compared to the control group. Rosenthal et al. (1977), however, found a superior effect on
creative performance when using lateral thinking methods, such as random-input. Beyond these two
studies, the rationale of the random-input technique was supported by other studies: Rothenberg
(1986) indicated that experimental manipulations intended to facilitate category combination
contributed to creativity. Dahl and Moreau (2002) demonstrated that originality was enhanced by
encouraging the extensive use of analogies and Hampton (1997) showed that new properties emerged
when individuals combined two or more concepts.
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 9
Given the insights of other researchers such as Dahl and Moreau (2002), Hampton (1997), and
Rothenberg (1986) and strong theoretical background regarding the random-input technique (Koestler,
1964; Mednick, 1962), it is assumed that the random-input technique fosters creative potential. Thus,
the present study should shed some light on the contradictory effects found by Svensson and
Rosenthal.
Hypothesis 1: Applying the random-input technique leads to a greater degree of creative potential
in comparison to the control group.
Combined techniques. As described above, the two processes, knowledge activation and
conceptual combination, are the most important factors for creative potential (Scott et al., 2004a).
Thus, it seems obvious that the combination of two techniques enhancing especially these processes
should yield promising results. As described above, the mind-map technique and the random-input
technique each focus on different creative processes: Mind-maps focus mainly on the activation of
knowledge and thus the quantity of ideas (Malycha & Maier, 2012). The random-input technique has a
different rationale: Rather than valuing the quantity of ideas, random-input prizes the remoteness of
idea-generation stimuli (Smith, 1998) and fosters the combination of these remote concepts.
Combining these two techniques should lead to higher creative potential when compared to the
results of implementing each of them individually because both creativity techniques (appear to) foster
the other one: Scott et al. (2005) found that the use of a conceptual combination approach led to better
performance when a large amount of activated knowledge was presented. As well for Baughman and
Mumford (1995), conceptual combination was more effective when key features, properties, or
categories are identified, mapped, and elaborated before (see also Scott et al., 2005), as is the case with
mind-mapping. On the other hand, the remote stimulation of the random-input technique will lead to a
greater knowledge base in a mind-map as new concepts can be integrated (Hampton, 1997). As the
two techniques foster different parts of the creative potential – the quantity and the quality of ideas -
the effects of the combined technique should outperform the effects of the individual techniques. In
the following, the combination is referred as random-map technique.
Hypothesis 2: The random-map technique (combination of the mind-map and random-input
technique) leads to a higher degree of creative potential than when the mind-map and random-input
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 10
techniques are implemented individually.
Methods
Participants
The initial sample consisted of 83 students of a large German university. Three participants were
excluded because they had either taken part in an earlier experiment with the same tasks (N = 1) or did
not follow the instructions correctly (N = 2). The final sample (N = 80) comprised 65 females (81.3%).
Participants’ mean age was 22.71 years (SD = 5.15) and they had been studying for an average of 2.63
semesters (SD = 2.80). Besides a focus on psychology (46.3%), many other fields of study were
represented (18.8% of the participants studied educational science, 7.5% law, 5.0% sports, 5.0%
sociology, 5.0% social science, and 12.4% other). All participants voluntarily participated in the study
and either took part in a raffle to win one of ten vouchers or received credit hours towards
experimental participation (required of all undergraduate students in psychology). Generally, the
participants indicated that they knew some creativity techniques, but that they had rarely used them
during the previous year (M = 1.8, SD = .48; Likert-scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always).
Procedure and measures
Hypotheses were tested with a 2x2 factorial between-subject design. The support by the mind-map
technique was varied as first factor and the support by the random-input technique as second factor.
Thus, four different groups were compared with each other: a mind-map group, a random-input group,
a random-map group (combined mind-map with random-input), and a control group with no
technique. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups. A trained experimenter
guided the experimental session. All instructions and information were standardized, either via written
materials or specified in scripts.
During the testing, which lasted for about one hour, the participants worked on the tasks
individually. The participants in the mind-map, random-input, or random-map technique conditions
were familiarized with the assigned technique by a written training course described below. The
participants in the control condition had to read a neutral text concerning innovation and an employee
suggestion system, which was identical in regard of length and word number to the mind-map and the
random-input instruction. As control variables, an intelligence screening measuring cognitive speed
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 11
with a trail making test (Zahlen-Verbindungs-Test, ZVT; Oswald & Roth, 1978) was applied before
and participant’s mood (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, PANAS; Krohne, Egloff, Kohlmann,
& Tausch, 1996), intrinsic motivation (Kurzskala intrinsicher Motivation, KIM; Wilde, Bätz,
Kovaleva, & Urhahne, 2009), and demographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex, academic major, and
years of study) were measured after the creativity tasks.
As a practice trial, all participants solved an exercise from the Alternative Uses Task (AUT;
Guilford, Christensen, Merrifield, & Wilson, 1978). They were asked to generate as many different
and original ideas on alternative uses of the paper clip. During the first seven minutes, participants
either applied the mind-map, the random-input, the random-map technique, or took some notes
(control group). In the following three minutes, all participants recorded the ideas they had generated
while either applying the corresponding technique or taking their notes. After this practice trial,
creative potential was measured by the product improvement task of the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1966). The TTCT is the most commonly used creativity test (Kim, 2011b)
with high interrater (> .90) and good retest reliabilities (> .60) (Cramond et al., 1999; Kim, 2011a) and
its tasks were used in a number of experiments to test creative potential (e.g., Cramond, Matthews-
Morgan, Torrance, and Zuo, 1999; Kim, 2011b; Runco, Millar, Acar, & Cramond, 2010). Its product
improvement task asks how a toy elephant can be improved creatively so that children have more fun
playing with it. Participants were asked to generate as many different and original ideas as they could.
They used the first twelve minutes to apply the particular creativity technique and the subsequent eight
minutes to write down their answers on an extra page. To measure creative potential, the TTCT uses
three continuous variables: Fluency is the ability to produce a large amount of relevant and meaningful
ideas. Flexibility is the ability to shift from one approach to another and is depicted by the different
response categories. Originality - the uniqueness of the responses in comparison with the normative
sample - is the ability to produce ideas that diverge from the obvious, commonplace, or established.
Mind-map instruction. The instructions of the mind-map technique were presented to the
participants according to the written instructions of Buzan and Buzan (2010): a method to let their
ideas flow and thus improve the quality and the quantity of the generated ideas. The likelihood of high
quality ideas should increase proportionately to the quantity of ideas generated. The participants were
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 12
further told that they did not have to work linearly on their maps. They were asked to start the mind-
maps with a central image in the middle of a tabloid-sized blank page in horizontal format. From that
central image they had to write their associations in printed letters on slightly curved lines, (i.e., the so
called “branches”) with each keyword on one branch. As they associate further aspects to the first
keywords, the network of branches and ideas grows. Thus, the possibility of generating good ideas
increases. They were then told that each aspect has to correspond only to the next higher aspect so that
many different aspects and concepts can be integrated into their mind-map – even if they do not
correspond directly to the central image. To highlight important aspects, the participants were able to
use different colors or symbols. They were allowed to add images to the written aspects or substitute
an aspect with an image. It was also possible to use arrows or codes to display connections between
branches. An example was provided to illustrate how the different steps of the mind-map technique
were supposed to be made.
Random-input instruction. De Bono’s (1992) random-input technique was described to the
participants as a technique to solve tasks by combining different aspects that initially do not seem to fit
together. A random word should trigger new perspectives and associations, which may then be
combined creatively with the task at hand. As a first step, participants had to write down their
spontaneous ideas to “get their minds free.” In the following step, a person using this technique would
normally select a random word out of an encyclopedia or another source to generate random-input. For
the experiment, the input was randomly chosen from an encyclopedia in advance to provide the same
random word to all participants. The random word was "chair" for the practice trial, and "hand" for the
creativity task. Thus, the random word had no direct or reasonable connection to the task. During this
step, the participants were asked to make associations to only the random word. Their associations
could be characteristics, skills, or special aspects of the random word. The participants were told not to
consider the task as the task. In a third step, the participants were asked to make connections between
the associations of the random-input and the task by thinking of similarities between the two or by
thinking how the associations can be used for solving the task. An example was provided to illustrate
how the different steps of the technique were supposed to be carried out.
Random-map instruction. The random-map technique was described as a merger of two
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 13
techniques so that they complement one another. The mind-map and the random-input technique were
described for the combined random-map technique in the same way that was used for the instructions
of the individual techniques.
First, participants had to draw a mind-map about the task with their spontaneous ideas to “free their
minds.” As in the random-input condition, they were given a random word (here again, in the
experiment the random words "chair" and "hand" were provided to the participants to parallel all
sessions). Associations had to be made to the random word and subsequently, these associations had to
be connected with the task by completing the mind-map. An example was provided to illustrate the
different steps of the random-map technique.
Results
Preliminary analyses
The answers were evaluated with the category system of the TTCT (Torrance, 2008) by a trained
rater. To prove rating objectivity, a second rater rated about 10% of the answers. Both raters were
blind to the conditions. Interrater reliability ICC (2, 1) [intra class coefficient, two-way random single
measure] was .98 for fluency, .95 for flexibility, and .96 for originality (all p < .001). Thus, all three
intra class coefficients lay slightly above the high rater reliability scores provided by Torrance (2008).
Furthermore, one-way between-groups ANOVAs showed that the four experimental groups did not
differ significantly with regard to intelligence (F(3, 76) = .42, p = .741), age (F(3, 76) = .41, p = .750),
duration of study (F(3, 75) = 1.03, p = .383), mood (positive mood: F(3, 76) = .67, p = .572; negative
mood: F(3, 76) = .16, p = .923), intrinsic motivation (F(3, 76) = 2.53, p = .064), and prior knowledge of
creativity techniques such as brainstorming (F(3, 75) = .92, p = .437), mind-mapping (F(3, 75) = .76, p =
.520), random-input (F(3, 73) = .51, p = .676), or the 6-3-5 technique (F(3, 74) = .97, p = .414).
Effects of the creativity techniques
Although the three creativity dimensions, fluency, flexibility, and originality were highly correlated
(.65 < r < .86; see Table 1), the magnitude of the correlations between the three dimensions were
similar to those stated by Torrance (1966, 2008). Taking the high degree of intercorrelations into
account, a total creativity index was calculated by taking the mean of the three z-standardized
creativity dimension scores. Intercorrelations between the creativity index, the three creativity
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 14
dimensions, the contrast codes, and control variables are depicted in Table 1.
---------------------------- Insert Table 1 approximately here --------------------------------------
Total creativity index. The amount of creative potential measured by the creativity index was
distinct in the four experimental groups. The mean value of the creativity index in each experimental
group can be seen in Table 2. Hypotheses were tested by multiple regression analysis of the z-
standardized creativity dimensions. Group affiliation was contrast coded according to Cohen, Cohen,
West, and Aiken (2003) with three contrast variables. The first variable c1 contrasted the mind-map
technique vs. the control group (1/2 vs. -1/2) and thus like a preliminary analysis tested whether the
present study replicated the findings from Malycha and Maier (2012). The second variable c2 tested
hypothesis 1 by contrasting the random-input technique vs. the control group (1/2 vs. -1/2). The third
variable c3 contrasted the two individual techniques vs. the combined technique (-1/3 vs. 2/3). This
variable shed light on hypothesis 2. The contrast variables c1, c2, and c3 explained 34.0% of the
variance of creative potential. As can be seen in Table 3, the first contrast variable showed a
significant effect (c1: p = .000, d = 1.47), which, according to Cohen (1988), was classified as large,
confirming the positive effect of the mind-map technique on creative potential. The second contrast
variable was marginally significant but still provided a large effect size (c2: p = .084, d = 1.18),
indicating a trend that the random-input technique fostered creative potential when compared to note-
taking (i.e., the control group). The third contrast variable showed a significant, medium effect (c3: p =
.000, d = .67). Thus, applying the random-map technique provided further substantial benefits for
creative potential in comparison to the two individual techniques.
Individual creativity dimensions. Furthermore, the effects of the creativity techniques were
analyzed individually on the three creativity dimensions fluency, flexibility, and originality. For a
better overview, results of the three regression analyses are reported together.
---------------------------- Insert Table 2 and 3 approximately here --------------------------------------
In the regression analyses, the three contrast variables explained 27.4% of the variance of fluency,
26.0% of the variance of flexibility, and 33.1% of the variance of originality. Mean values for each
experimental group for the three creativity dimensions are depicted in Table 2. Regarding the first
contrast variable c1,, highly significant large effects confirmed the positive effect of the mind-map
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 15
technique in each creativity dimension (fluency: p = .001, d = 1.30; flexibility: p = .000, d = 1.27;
originality: p = .001, d = 1.40). Here again, the mind-map technique fostered the quantity, the
diversity, and the uniqueness of ideas.
Contrasting the random-input technique with the control group (c2), a marginally significant but
large effect was found for fluency (p = .087, d = 1.03), a non-significant effect for flexibility (p =
.492, d = .84), and a significant, large effect for originality (p = .029, d = 1.16). Compared to the notes
of the control group, using the random-input technique affected the uniqueness of the generated ideas
in particular. Although it was only marginally significant, the large effect on fluency indicated a trend
of enhancing as well the amount of ideas by using the random-input technique. Thus, hypothesis 1 was
partly confirmed by the data.
The third contrast variable c3,, which compared the individual techniques with the combined
technique, showed significant, medium effects for all three creativity dimensions (fluency: p = .000, d
= .54; flexibility: p = .001, d = .49; originality p = .000, d = .74). Thus, using the combined technique
provided a higher quantity, higher degree of diversity, and more unique ideas in comparison with the
two individual techniques, which clearly confirmed hypothesis 2.
Additional analyses
The time used for preparation, which could be set individually, showed significant correlations
with the contrast codes as can be seen in Table 1 which might indicate a difference between the
groups. Thus, exploratively, a one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to test for significant
differences with regard to their preparation time. The four experimental groups differed significantly
in their preparation time (F(3, 76) = 6.07, p = .001). The difference in mean scores between the groups
was large, as eta squared was .19 (Cohen, 1988). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey test indicated
that the mean score (in seconds) for the control group (M = 611.61, SD = 133.42) was significantly
different from the random-input group (M = 695.38, SD = 47.58) and the mind-map group (M =
713.50, SD = 16.63). The random-map group (M = 653.67, SD = 84.01) did not differ significantly
from either the control or the other creativity technique groups. Despite the large effect between the
experimental groups, preparation time did not have significant effects on the dependent variables when
taken into account as a control variable in the regression analyses (all p > .05), nor did it change the
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 16
effects of the contrast variables on the creativity dimensions (e.g., creativity index: time: B = .01, p =
.95; c1: B = 1.17, p = .000; c2: B = 0.49, p = .092; c3: B = 0.95, p = .000; R² = .34, p = .000).
Discussion
The most important finding of our study is that the combined mind-map technique with random-
input, that is, the random-map technique, enhanced creative potential not only above the achievement
level of the control group but also above the achievement levels reached when the individual
techniques were implemented individually. As the combined technique showed the highest results
regarding creative potential in this study, it appears that the simultaneous training of two creativity
processes - the knowledge activation and the conceptual combination - is more beneficial than the
individual stimulation of one of these processes. Scott et al. (2005) stated that sufficient knowledge is
necessary to abstract relevant features and principles, which in turn is important for analogical
thinking (see Hunter et al., 2008). Within the combined random-map technique, knowledge is first
activated by the mind-map part and is then used for conceptual combination by the random-input part.
Looking at the effects of the individual techniques, creative potential was significantly fostered by
the mind-map technique in all three, and by the random-input technique in one out of three creativity
dimensions. The large effects of the mind-map technique found in the present study thus confirmed
prior findings (Malycha & Maier, 2012). With its net-like character, the mind-map technique is able to
enhance the amount, the diverseness, and the uniqueness of ideas. Here again, the mind-map technique
proved to be a useful heuristic or strategy for working with prior knowledge, which is prerequisite for
creative potential (cf. Scott et al., 2004a).
The random-input technique significantly fostered originality and had a marginally significant
effect on fluency and a non-significant effect on flexibility. This pattern is not surprising as remote
concepts are combined in way that unique ideas can evolve - thus fostering originality. The amount
and the variety of ideas were not affected directly by the remoteness of the combination because the
strong focus on the random stimulus may impede the mind’s ability to think in other directions. This
would be consistent with the results in Svensson et al.’s study (2002). These authors also found a
lower flexibility score of the random-input technique, indicating that fewer categories were used
within this group. Another explanation for the non-significant effect of flexibility could be that the
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 17
random-input technique was too difficult for participants to be applied in an effective manner as they
had never used it before; This would be consistent with Baughman and Mumford’s findings (1995).
Further research should try to clarify whether the random-input technique is a tool for enhancing only
originality or whether participants need some time to apply the technique effectively and, as a
consequence, whether all three creativity dimensions can be fostered by the random-input technique.
Longitudinal studies seem to be the best medium to shed light on this question.
The large effect sizes of 1.03 to 1.40 of the creativity techniques supported the importance of the
findings. Compared to medium effect sizes of .68 to .78 found in various meta-analyses (Ma, 2006;
Scott et al., 2004a, 2004b), the effect sizes of this study were quite impressive. Although the large
effects underscore the importance of knowledge in the combination and reorganization process (see
Rich & Weisberg, 2004), there is still a need for more research examining how strategies and
knowledge bases interact in people's creative problem-solving efforts and which type of knowledge is
likely to prove most valuable for this process (see Mumford, Medeiros, & Partlow, 2012).
Limitations and future research
In interpreting the present results, two main limitations have to be considered: First, one major
weakness of the study is the potential restriction of external validity. The present study is an
experimental study with student participants. As the problems presented to the individuals, as well as
the time constraints used to keep the different groups comparable are artificial, the effects of the
creativity techniques on real-life problems can only be assumed. Nonetheless, laboratory studies have
the benefit that single, important features can be varied while all other conditions are held stable
between different experimental groups. Furthermore, Mitchell (2012) has found evidence for a high
association between laboratory and field findings in his meta-analysis. However, further research is
necessary to predict the influence of the different techniques in real-world settings.
Second, creative potential was examined in a restricted domain. Although, the use of these kinds of
low-fidelity simulation tasks is generally recommended in studies of creative thinking, the results
cannot be generalized directly to other domains (Baer, 2003). Mumford et al. (2010) found that the
type of skills needed for creative thinking differ in different fields of work. They recommend that
effective educational interventions should take into account the demands of creative processing skills
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 18
within the particular fields. Further research should contrast the creativity techniques in different fields
of work to gain more detailed insights and to compare the implications of the techniques in different
domains. Moreover, the application of the creativity techniques should also be broadened to non-
student samples and participants with varying ages in order to generalize the present findings.
Beside these further investigations regarding the limitation of the present study, research should
additionally examine the combination of techniques of other creativity processes. Research on the
sincere combination of creativity techniques will hopefully lead to a change of the imbalance which
still exists between the thoughtless application and research-based use of creativity techniques (see
Puccio et al., 2006). Thus, research should especially be directed at the questions (a) if an optimal
number of creative processes exists for combination, and (b) if the creative potential grows
proportionally with the number of processes involved in a training or if creative potential approaches a
theoretical limit asymptotically. The time needed for training or applying diverse combinations should
be considered as well instead of following the principle "the more, the better." Hopefully, this
investigation will provide an impetus for future work along these lines.
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 19
References
Akinoglu, O., & Yasar, Z. (2007). The effects of note taking in science education through the mind
mapping technique on students' attitudes, academic achievement and concept learning. Journal of
Baltic Science Education, 6, 34-42.
Baer, J. (2003). Evaluative thinking, creativity, and task specificity: Separating wheat from chaff is not
the same as finding the needle in haystacks. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes (pp.
129-152). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Baughman, W. A. & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Process analytic models of creative capacities:
Operations involved in the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8,
37-62. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0801_4
Bono, E. de (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New
York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Bower, G. H. (2008). The evolution of a cognitive psychologist: A journey from simple behaviors to
complex mental acts. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 1–27.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093722
Brahm, A. G. (2013). The effect of mind-mapping applications on upper primary students' success and
inquiry-learning skills in science and environment education. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 22, 337–352. doi:10.1080/10382046.2013.826543
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2010). The mind-map book: Unlock your creativity, boost your memory,
change your life. London: BBC Active.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Torrance, E. P., & Zuo, L. (1999). Why should the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking be used to assess creativity? The Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem
Solving, 9, 77–101.
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 20
Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new
product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 47–60.
D'Antoni, A. V., Zipp, G. P., Olson, V. G. (2009). Interrater reliability of the mind-map assessment
rubric in a cohort of medical students. BMC Medical Education, 9, 19-26. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-
9-19
Estes, Z., & Ward, T. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity
Research Journal, 14, 149–156. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1402_2
Gill, T., & Dubé, L. (2007). What is a Leather Iron or a Bird Phone? Using conceptual combination to
generate and understand new product concepts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 202–217.
doi:10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70029-3
Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1978). Alternate Uses: Manual
of instructions and interpretations. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.
Hampton, J. A. (1997): Emergent attributes in combined concepts. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith und J.
Vaid (Hg.): Creative thought. An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 83-110).
Washington, DC: APA Books.
Hardy, I., & Stadelhofer, B. (2006). Concept Maps wirkungsvoll als Strukturierungshilfen einsetzen:
Welche Rolle spielt die Selbstkonstruktion? [Using concept maps effectively as structural support:
The role of self-construction]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 20, 175–187.
doi:10.1024/1010-0652.20.3.175
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the
focus from teaching to learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunsicker, C. M., Mumford, M. D., & Ligon, G. S. (2008).
Applying multiple knowledge structures in creative thought: Effects on idea generation and
problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 137-154. doi:10.1080/10400410802088779
Kim, K. H. (2011a). Proven reliability and validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 314-315. doi:10.1037/a0021916
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 21
Kim, K. H. (2011b). The APA 2009 Division 10 debate: Are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 302–308.
doi:10.1037/a0021917
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Dell.
Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., & Korde, R. M. (2011). Conceptual combination and subsequent
creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 203-210. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.595659
Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C. W. & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer
deutschen Version der "Positive and Negative Affect Schedule" (PANAS) [Testings with the
german version of the "Positive and Negative Affect Schedule"]. Diagnostica, 42, 139-156.
Kulkani, D. & Simon, H. A. (1988). The process of scientific discovery: The strategy of
experimentation. Cognitive Science, 12, 139-175. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90020-1
Ma, H.-H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in
creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 435-446.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1804_3
Malycha, C. P., & Maier, G. W. (2012). Differentielle Effekte der Mind-Map-Technik auf das kreative
Lösen von unstrukturierten Problemen [Differential effects of mind map technique on creative
solution of unstructured problems]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 26, 149–157.
doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000065
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–
232.
Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological
laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 109–117. doi:10.1177/1745691611432343
Mobley, M. I., Doares, L. M., & Mumford, M. D. (1992). Process analytic models of creative
capacities: Evidence for the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal,
5, 125–155. doi:10.1080/10400419209534428
Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., Connelly, S., & Beeler, C. (2010). Cross-field
differences in creative problem-solving skills: A comparison of health, biological, and social
sciences. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 14-26. doi:10.1080/10400410903579510
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 22
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P., & Supinski, E. P. (1997).
Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: IV. Category combination. Creativity
Research Journal, 10, 59–71.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., & Sager, C. E. (2003). Picking the right material: Cognitive
processing skills and their role in creative thought. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative
processes (pp. 129-152). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Supinski, E. P., & Maher, M. A. (1996). Process-based measures
of creative problem-solving skills: II. Information encoding. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 77–88.
Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies,
and knowledge. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 30-47. doi:10.1002/jocb.003
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process
analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122.
doi:10.1080/10400419109534380
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analyses.
Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448. doi:10.3102/00346543076003413
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 392–430). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking (3. ed.). New
York: Scribner's.
Oswald, W. D., & Roth, E. (1978). Zahlen-Verbindungs-Test [Number combination test] (2. ed).
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Puccio, G. J., Firestien, R. L., Coyle, C., & Masucci, C. (2006). A review of the effectiveness of CPS
training: A focus on workplace issues. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 19- 33.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00366.x
Qin, Y., & Simon, H. A. (1990). Laboratory replication of scientific discovery processes. Cognitive
Science, 14, 281-312. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1402_4
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 23
Renkl, A., & Nückles, M. (2006). Lernstrategien der externen Visualisierung [Learning strategies of
externalized visualization]. In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Handbuch Lernstrategien
[Handbook of learning strategies ] (pp. 135–147). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Rich, J. D. & Weisberg, R. W. (2004). Creating all in the family: A case study in creative thinking.
Creativity Research Journal, 16, 247-259. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1602&3_8
Rosenthal, D. A., Morrison, S. M., & Perry, L. (1977). Teaching creativity: A comparison of two
techniques. The Australian Journal of Education, 21, 226–232. doi:10.1177/000494417702100302
Rothenberg, A. (1986). Artistic creation as stimulated by superimposed versus combined-composite
visual images. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 370–381. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.50.2.370
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as
predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research
Journal, 22, 361–368. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.523393
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., Shavelson, R. J. (2001): Comparison of the reliability and
validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
38, S. 260–278. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<260::AID-TEA1005>3.0.CO;2-F
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training: A
quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1604_1
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: Approaches and their
effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 149–179. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01238.x
Scott, G., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Conceptual combination: Alternative
knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 79-98.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_7
Siau, K. L. (1996). Electronic creativity techniques for organizational innovation. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 30, 283–293.
Smith, G. F. (1998). Idea-generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 32, 107–133. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00810.x
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 24
Smith, S. M., & Ward, T. B. (2012). Cognition and the creation of ideas. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G.
Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 456–474). Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Svensson, N., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2002). Effects of individual performance versus group
performance with and without de Bono technique for enhancing creativity. The Korean Journal of
Thinking & Problem Solving, 12, 15–34.
Tehan, G. (2010). Associative relatedness enhances recall and produces false memories in immediate
serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 266–272. doi:10.1037/a0021375
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Thinking creatively with words, Booklet
A. Princeton, N.J.
Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Manual for scoring and interpreting
results, Verbal form A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
VanGundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of structured problem solving (2nd ed.). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Ward, T. B. (1995). What's old about new ideas? In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.),
The creative cognition approach (pp. 157-178). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 226-250). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Wilde, M., Bätz, K., Kovaleva, A., & Urhahne, D. (2009). Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsicher
Motivation (KIM) [Testing a short scale of intrinsic motivation, KIM]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der
Naturwissenschaften, 15, 31–45.
Wilkenfeld, M. J., & Ward, T. B. (2001). Similarity and emergence in conceptual combination.
Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 21–38. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2772
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 25
Tables
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelation among study variables
Variables
M (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
c1
0.01 (0.35)
-
2
c2
0.02 (0.35)
.47***
-
3
c3
0.00 (0.42)
-.29**
-.30**
-
4
creativity index
0.00 (0.91)
.41***
.27*
.25
-
5
fluency
0.00 (1.00)
.37***
.26*
.21†
.95***
-
6
flexibility
0.00 (1.00)
.39***
.19
.20†
.87***
.73***
-
7
originality
0.00 (1.00)
.36***
.28*
.28*
.92***
.86***
.66***
-
8
intelligence
114.16 (11.71)
-.12
-.09
.02
-.12
-.13
-.06
-.13
-
9
intrinsic motivation
3.64 (0.89)
-.03
.25*
-.06
.07
.04
-.04
.19†
-.19†
(.89)
10
positive mood
3.05 (0.76)
.08
.01
-.18
-.09
-.12
-.10
-.04
-.02
.43***
(.90)
11
negative mood
1.18 (0.22)
.09
.04
-.04
.06
.05
.02
.11
-.06
-.15
-.32**
(.63)
12
age
22.71 (5.11)
-.04
.02
-.10
-.01
-.06
.01
.02
-.14
.30**
.19†
-.11
-
13
duration of study (sem)a
2.63 (2.78)
-.01
.13
-.15
-.11
-.02
-.17
-.09
-.06
.29**
.20†
-.16
.32**
-
14
Prep. time (in sec.)
670.11 (88.06)
.40***
.32**
-.24*
.14
.15
.11
.12
.00
.11
-.00
.07
.18
.19†
-
Note. N = 80. a N = 79. b N = 41. Reliability coefficients appear in parentheses. z-standardized values were used for creativity dimensions.
Coding: c1: CG = -1/2, MM = 1/2, RI = 0, MMRI = 0; c2: CG = -1/2, MM = 0, RI = 1/2, MMRI =0; c3: CG = 0, MM = -1/3, RI = -1/3, MMRI = 2/3.
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed).
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 26
Table 2
Means and standard deviations of the creativity index and the three creativity dimensions for
each experimental group
group affiliation
creativity index
M (SD)
fluency
M (SD)
flexibility
M (SD)
originality
M (SD)
control group
-.86 (0.50)
-.87 (0.67)
-.79 (0.64)
-.92 (0.50)
random-input
-.10 (0.76)
-.05 (0.90)
-.19 (0.78)
-.06 (0.93)
mind-map
.24 (0.94)
.23 (0.99)
.35 (1.10)
.15 (0.96)
random-map
.60 (0.74)
.58 (0.86)
.53 (0.91)
.71 (0.84)
Note: N = 80.
z-standardized values were used.
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 27
Table 3
Simultaneous regression analyses predicting the creativity index and the three creativity
dimensions
dependent variable
predictor
B
SE B
β
R²
p
creativity Index
c1 (CG vs. MM)
c2 (CG vs. RI)
c3 (RI, MM vs. MMRI)
1.17
0.49
0.95
.28
.28
.22
.446***
.188†
.436***
.34
.000
fluency
c1 (CG vs. MM)
c2 (CG vs. RI)
c3 (RI, MM vs. MMRI)
1.12
0.56
0.90
.32
.32
.25
.389***
.195†
.379***
.27
.000
flexibility
c1 (CG vs. MM)
c2 (CG vs. RI)
c3 (RI, MM vs. MMRI)
1.31
0.22
0.84
.33
.32
.25
.454***
.079
.351***
.26
.000
originality
c1 (CG vs. MM)
c2 (CG vs. RI)
c3 (RI, MM vs. MMRI)
1.09
0.69
1.10
.31
.31
.24
.378***
.240*
.463***
.33
.000
Note. N = 80.
Coding: c1: CG = -1/2, MM = 1/2, RI = 0, MMRI = 0; c2: CG = -1/2, MM = 0, RI = 1/2, MMRI =0; c3:
CG = 0, MM = -1/3, RI = -1/3, MMRI = 2/3.
† p < .10, * p < .05, *** p < .001 (two-tailed).
MIND-MAPPING COMBINED WITH RANDOM-INPUT 28
Figures
Figure 1
Effects of the creativity trainings on creativity dimensions
