Connected Creativity
The Impact of Web Search on Everyday Creative Thinking
Abstract
Abstract. With more than 60% of the world’s population online, how does our rapidly evolving digital world impact creative processes and outcomes? On the one hand, there is the promise of the shared knowledge and ideas of humanity, readily available at our fingertips, providing numerous starting points from which to develop new ideas. On the other hand, we may be overwhelmed by the volume of information, struggle to find and identify quality information to form the basis of a creative thinking process, and instead fall back on common, accepted ideas. Throughout this article, we place creators and creating in the ubiquitous situated context of searching the World Wide Web (i.e., the Web) and consider the implications for a range of everyday creative thinking processes. Research in this area is surprisingly limited, and a number of suggestions are made to take this area forward as the Web becomes an ever-expanding part of our cognitive ecology.
References
(2019). Heuristic cues for meta-reasoning judgments: Review and methodology. Psihologijske Teme, 28(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.1
(2020).
Satisficing, meta-reasoning, and the rationality of further deliberation . In S. ElqayamI. DouvenJ. EvansN. CruzEds., Logic and Uncertainty in the Human Mind (pp. 10–26). Routledge.(2018).
Meta-reasoning: Shedding meta-cognitive light on reasoning research . In L. BallV. ThompsonEds., The Routledge international handbook of thinking & reasoning (pp. 1–15). Routledge.(2015). An eye-tracking analysis of irrelevance processing as moderator of openness and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1030304
(2019). Advancing an understanding of design cognition and design metacognition: Progress and prospects. Design Studies, 65, 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.003
(2018). Trapped in the filter bubble? Exploring the influence of Google search on the creative process. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 18(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1487810
(2015). The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.029
(2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004
(2020). Mapping the creative mind. American Scientist, 108(4), 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1511/2020.108.4.218
(2012). Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent thinking tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029171
(2019). Toward a neurocognitive framework of creative cognition: The role of memory, attention, and cognitive control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.002
(2018).
Spontaneous and controlled processes in creative cognition . In K. ChristoffK. C. R. FoxEds., The Oxford handbook of spontaneous thought (pp. 285–298). Oxford University Press.(2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108(3), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.005
(2012). Information scent determines attention allocation and link selection among multiple information patches on a webpage. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2011.599041
(2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the unoriginal? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(3), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01288.x
(2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004
(2020). Subjective semantic surprise resulting from divided attention biases evaluations of an idea’s creativity. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 2144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59096-y
(2010, June). Does the Internet make you dumber? Wall Street Journal. https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/tina.schwettmann/engl1301/unit-1-education-in-america-and-rhetoric/nicholas-carrs-does-the-internet-make-you-dumber/view
(2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499
(2020). Developing collaborative creativity through microblogging: A material-dialogic approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100685
(2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627
(2017). Using the Web as a higher order thinking partner: Case study of an advanced learner creatively synthesizing knowledge on the web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 240–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116667356
(2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196731
(2012). Information search activity: An overview. Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee/European Review of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.03.004
(2012). Evaluative and generative modes of thought during the creative process. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1783–1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.008
(2019). Are smartphones really that bad? Improving the psychological measurement of technology-related behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.006
(1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
(2010). Enhancing creativity by means of cognitive stimulation: Evidence from an fMRI study. NeuroImage, 52(4), 1687–1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.072
(2012). Stimulating creativity via the exposure to other people’s ideas. Human Brain Mapping, 33(11), 2603–2610. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21387
(1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and applications. MIT Press.
(2020). Exploring the impact of internet use on memory and attention processes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), Article 9481. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249481
(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906
(2017). Honing theory: A complex systems framework for creativity. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 21(1), 35–88.
(2010).
Evolutionary approaches to creativity . In J. KaufmanR. SternbergEds., The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 279–300). Cambridge University Press.(2020). Fast thoughts and metacognitive feelings: The role of cognitive styles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34, 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2225
(2020). Need something different? Here’s what’s been done: Effects of examples and task instructions on creative idea generation. Memory & Cognition, 48(2), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-01005-4
(2019). Constraining or constructive? The effects of examples on idea novelty. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(3), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.178
(2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98(4), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2007.tb00467.x
(2020). Creative experience: A non-standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 33(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1827606
(2014). Whether social schema violations help or hurt creativity depends on need for structure. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 959–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214533132
(2016). Inspiration choices that matter: The selection of external stimuli during ideation. Design Science, 2(e10), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2016.10
(1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
(1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040755
(2018). The role of reading skills in the evaluation of online information gathered from search engine environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.004
(2019). Invisible search and online search engines: The ubiquity of search in everyday life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429448546
(2018). The role of information search in creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000212
(2016). The internet, cognitive enhancement, and the values of cognition. Minds and Machines, 26(4), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-016-9404-3
(2020). Cognition and the web: Extended, transactive, or scaffolded? Erkenntnis, 85(1), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0022-8
(2018). The future of learning by searching the web: Mobile, social, and multimodal. Frontline Learning Research, 6(2), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i2.343
(2016). Modes for creative human-computer collaboration: Alternating and task-divided co-creativity. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity. http://www.computationalcreativity.net/iccc2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Modes-for-Creative-Human-Computer-Collaboration.pdf
(2020).
The role of attention in the development of creativity . In K. Cohen-KadoshEd., The Oxford handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198827474.013.15(2020). Health information overload among health consumers: A scoping review. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.008
(2005). Supporting creativity with search tools. Creativity Support Tools, 50, 53–64. https://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/CST/Papers/supportingcreativity.htm
(2018). Eureka heuristics: How feelings of insight signal the quality of a new idea. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ez3tn
(2015). Exploring search task difficulty reasons in different task types and user knowledge groups. Information Processing & Management, 51(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.10.001
(2016). Same but different? Distributed creativity in the Internet age. Creativity: Theories – Research – Applications, 3(2), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2016-0020
(2018). Distributed creativity on the internet: A theoretical foundation for online creative participation. International Journal of Communication, 12, 893–908.
(2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1334_07
Lubart, T. (Ed.). (2018). The creative process: Perspectives from multiple domains (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
(2017). Hypermedia navigation: Differences between spatial cognitive styles. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.038
(2019). The digital expansion of the mind: Implications of internet usage for memory and cognition. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.11.001
(1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
(1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0901_6
(2012). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534380
(1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534380
(2013). Extending cognition to external agents. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2013.844056
(2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 34–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323
(2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00500-0
(2019). Quantifying biases in online information exposure. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(3), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24121
(2020). Web searching and navigation: Age, intelligence, and familiarity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(8), 902–915. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24314
(2017). Using information scent to understand mobile and desktop Web search behavior. Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information. Retrieval – SIGIR “17, https://doi.org/10.1145/3077136.3080817
(2021). The “active search” hypothesis: How search strategies relate to creative learning. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR “21), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406522.3446046
(2005). Rational analyses of information foraging on the web. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_20
(1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.643
(2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
(2017a). The Mode Shifting Index (MSI): A new measure of the creative thinking skill of shifting between associative and analytic thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.10.010
(2017b). Unearthing the creative thinking process: Fresh insights from a think-aloud study of garden design. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(3), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000144
(2021). Metacognitive feelings as a source of information in the evaluation and selection of creative ideas. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, Article 100767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100767
(2017). The role of problem construction in creative production. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 323–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.202
(1997). Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1001_2
(2012). Amount of invested mental effort (AIME) in online searching. Information Processing & Management, 48(6), 1136–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2012.05.001
(2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 933–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.014
(2016). On retrieving information from external knowledge stores: Feeling-of-findability, feeling-of-knowing and Internet search. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.046
(2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 961–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.009
(2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
(2019, February 4). More than six hours of our day is spent online – Digital 2019 reports. Digitalinformationworld.Com https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/02/internet-users-spend-more-than-a-quarter-of-their-lives-online.html
(2017). Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: An eye tracking and cued retrospective think-aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12152
(2018). Berrypicking and information foraging: Comparison of two theoretical frameworks for studying exploratory search. Journal of Information Science, 44(5), 580–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551517713168
(2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.
(2008). Investigating the roles of knowledge and cognitive abilities in older adult information seeking on the Web. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352782.1352785
(1979). Models of thought. Yale University Press.
(2017). The cognitive ecology of the internet. Cognition beyond the brain (pp. 251–282). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49115-8_13
(2019). Knowledge-context in search systems: Toward information-literate actions. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, 55–62. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/
(1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 837–845. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202751
(2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual-process theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.885464
(2019). Search fluency as a misleading measure of memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000806
(2019). Thoughts on the digital expansion of the mind and the effects of using the internet on memory and cognition. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.12.003
(2017). The search-ification of everyday life and the mundane-ification of search. The Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 224–243.
(2017). Information overload, psychological ill-being, and behavioral intention to continue online healthcare information search. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.068
(2017). Supporting creativity through the interactive exploratory search paradigm. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 33(2), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1220104
(2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
(2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012
(2020). The influence of situational cues on children’s creativity in an alternative uses task and the moderating effect of selective attention. Journal of Intelligence, 8(4), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8040037
(2009). Variable attention facilitates creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014781
(2015). Inspiration and fixation: Questions, methods, findings, and challenges. Design Studies, 42, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.11.001
(1926). The art of thought. Watts & Co.
(2019). Fluency and feeling of rightness: The effect of anchoring and models. Psihologijske Teme, 28(1), 37–72. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.3
(2013). Exploratory search: Beyond the query-response paradigm. Morgan & Claypool.
(1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 26(4), 716–730. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211392
(2007). Heuristic and systematic use of search engines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 778–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00350.x
(2020). Can concept mapping facilitate verbal divergent thinking? Creativity Research Journal, 32(4), 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1843124
(2019). Expanding cognition: A brief consideration of technological advances over the past 4000 years. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.12.004
(2018).
Attention and creativity . In R. E. JungO. VartanianEds., The Cambridge handbook of the neuroscience of creativity (pp. 161–179). Cambridge University Press.(2010). Creativity as flexible cognitive control. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(3), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017379
(2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01080.x
(2019). Understanding how people use search to support their everyday creative tasks. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298936
(2020). An in-situ study of information needs in design-related creative projects. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, https://doi.org/10.1145/3343413.3377973
(2019). The relevance of the irrelevant: Attentional distractor-response binding predicts performance in the remote associates task. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000162
