Reactions to Creative Problem Solving Training: Does Cognitive Style Make a Difference?

Abstract

AbstractCreative Problem Solving (CPS), a well‐documented methodology for developing creative‐thinking skills, has often been the focus of studies that have examined the impact of creativity training. The purpose of the present study was to extend this line of research in two ways. The first objective was to evaluate participants' reactions to specific elements of a CPS course. Here participants were asked to rate the CPS components, stages, principles, and tools for enjoyment and future value. The second objective was to examine whether participants' reactions to the CPS training varied in accordance to their cognitive style preferences. The inventory used to measure cognitive style is called FourSight. FourSight identifies respondents' preferences in terms of four key elements of the creative process: problem identification (i.e., Clarifier), idea generation (i.e., Ideator), solution development (i.e., Developer), and implementation (i.e., Implementer). Eighty‐four participants were enrolled in various graduate and undergraduate courses in CPS. Participants completed FourSight at the beginning of their respective course and at the conclusion they responded to a survey in which they evaluated various aspects of CPS for enjoyment and value. Overall evaluation of the CPS courses indicated that participants associated the greatest enjoyment and future value with tools, principles, and stages that were primarily orientated towards divergent thinking. Analysis of participants' reactions in light of their FourSight preferences revealed two distinct types of reactions to the course content. One form of response was labeled true‐to‐type, for example, individuals who expressed high Clarifier preferences found learning the Gather Data stage of CPS to be more enjoyable than those with low Clarifier preferences. The second type of reaction was referred to as a complementary relationship. This type of relationship between the course and the participant's style seemed to indicate a desire to develop a skill that is perhaps outside of one's style preference. For example, participants with strong Ideator preferences were more likely to associate higher levels of future value with the Prepare for Action component of the CPS process. The implications of these and other findings are discussed.