Comparing structured thinking tools on a problem construction task using an ill-defined problem

Problem construction is a distinct and important stage within creative problem solving. We have shown that structured thinking tools (i.e., six men, six hats) can enhance problem construction ability when the problem is evident. Here we examined whether such effects would be replicated when the problem is more ambiguous. We had 118 participants randomly allocated to one of the three groups (six men, six hats, placebo-control) and, after reading a brief synopsis of their allocated tool, they then attempted to restate a problem in as many different ways as they could within an allotted time. Performance was measured in terms of the fluency, quality, flexibility and originality of responses. Results showed that using the six men tool led to greater fluency compared to both the six hats and the placebo intervention. Use of the placebo brain breathing tool led to responses of greater quality compared to those using the six men, with those using the six hats showing a trend for improved quality compared to the six men. There were no differences in flexibility or originality. Such results only partially support our previous work and are discussed in terms of the benefits explicitly scaffolding thinking can benefit creative problem solving.