Cupchik, Van Erp, Cardoso, and Hekkert evaluated factors that influence human creativity. They found that “The interaction between intuitive (practice-based) and logical (theory-based) ways of thinking about creatively solving design problems is the focus of this project. . . . industrial design students were exposed to both intuitive and logical design approaches to resolving briefs during a 1-day workshop. The intuitive approach encouraged an open and informal take on idea development grounded in past-experience, whereas the logical approach emphasized structured and sequential problem analysis. . . . the intuitive approach energized participants and stimulated idea generation after 30 min, but teamwork was challenging. The logical approach lent confidence to the students and was easier to adopt, but only after applying an intuitive approach in the morning session. Students found it more challenging to complete their proposals after 120 min in the logical condition. Proposals by students in the intuitive condition comprised mostly images, while those created in the logical condition were highly verbal.” Half of the participants were exposed to the intuitive approach first and the logical one second, and the reverse was true of the other half of those that took part in the study.
Gerald Cupchik, Jeroen Van Erp, Carlos Cardoso, and Paul Hekkert. “The Complementary Roles of Intuition and Logic in Creative Design Ideation.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, in press, https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000635