To become more inventive, new research suggests, we should start thinking about common items in terms of their component parts, decoupling their names from their uses.

When we think of an object—a candle, say—we tend to think of its name, appearance and purpose all at once. We have expectations about how the candle works and what we can do with it. Psychologists call this rigid thinking “functional fixedness.”

Tony McCaffrey, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, developed a two-step “generic parts technique,” which trains people to overcome functional fixedness. First, break down the items at hand into their basic parts, then name each part in a way that does not imply meaning. Using his technique, a candle becomes wax and string. Seeing the wick as a string is key: calling it a “wick” implies that its use is to be lit, but calling it a “string” opens up new possibilities.

Subjects he trained in this technique readily mastered it and solved 67 percent more problems requiring creative insight than subjects who did not learn the technique, according to his study published in March in Psychological Science. For instance, when given metal rings and a candle and asked to connect the rings together, those who named the candle's generic parts realized the wick could be used to tie up the rings. Another problem asked subjects to build a simple circuit board with a terminal, wires and a screwdriver—but the wires were too short. Those who renamed the shaft of the screwdriver a “four-inch length of metal” realized it could be used to bridge the gap and conduct electricity.

McCaffrey has used his generic-parts technique to help engineers solve real-world industrial problems, and he is adapting it into a software program for professionals who need creative insight at work. But he also says the technique has been particularly useful in his everyday life. He noticed the back of a yard chair was a piece of sturdy, curved plastic, and he used it to shovel piles of leaves. He also realized he could use binder clips to secure a leaning sapling to the edge of his gutter. “Ask yourself the question: Does my description of the part imply a use?” McCaffrey explains. Remove “binder” from the description, and the “clip” suddenly seems limitless. [For more on this study and others about creativity, see page 24.]

3 Comments

1. 1. billsmith 11:11 AM 7/23/12

   If you don't think this way, you probably didn't take apart enough electronic and mechanical devices as a kid. If that's the case, I would hope that you instead developed an intuition about how any item can be reassembled into artwork, musical instruments, sports equipment, biology tools, chemistry/cooking supplies, etc.
   
   Suggested reading material:
   
   The Way Things Work, by David Macaulay
   
   Fifty Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do), by Gever Tulley

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. jtdwyer 11:35 PM 7/23/12

   In my (past) experience, it seemed that many who were not very capable of analytical thinking tended to become incompetent managers who liked very much to reduce every resource and problem to a single label - you know, to facilitate ease of decision making...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. kwanyin 02:24 AM 8/30/12

   
   LifeHacker, a blog, reported on an article by Amy Mayer in the July 23 issue of Scientific American (something). I looked the article up on your site. Amy Mayer was the author. The title was "Rethinking Labels Boosts Creativity."
   
   I then went to my library at Simmons College and attempted to retrieve the article. I spent FORTY-FIVE MINUTES attempting to retrieve the article, finally using EBSCO-host's artificial intelligence matching feature, wherein I copied the entire first paragraph and had EBSCO attempt to match it, before I FINALLY discovered that the actual article information is
   
   Rename It, Reuse It. By: Mayer, Amy. Scientific American Mind. Jul/Aug2012, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p8-8. 1/2p. Abstract: The article offers information on the study conducted that reveals the role of cognitive ability in the use of everyday items. (AN: 76436895)
   
   I saved the article.
   
   Then I compounded my error by trying to contact you to express my frustration about the mismatch.
   
   I had to log in with my LinkedIn account, create an account, go to my email, click on an activation link, and then RE-LOG into my account before I got this miserable email address, above.
   
   And the article is something like 450 words!
   
   The email speaks for itself. The New York Review of Books, to which I subscribe, makes half its content available online for free. But I have such warm feelings for that journal, which is excellent, that I subscribe to have the paper edition available.
   
   The experience I had with your journal generated the opposite of warm feelings. I feel had.
   
   Nicholas Lastname
   Boston, Mass.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this