臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

概念結合是指將兩個或是兩個以上不同的概念組合以產生一新概念的認知歷程。本研究即在探討概念結合訓練、概念的抽象程度與詮釋次數對新概念創意程度的影響。104名大學生與研究生被隨機分派到不同的概念結合訓練情境的小組，實驗組接受概念結合訓練，控制組則無。之後，每個人要對6對含有具象或抽象概念的名詞-名詞配對進行三次詮釋。結果發現，新概念的獨創性會隨著詮釋次數的增加而顯著上升，概念結合訓練對新概念的創意接近顯著。概念的抽象程度對新概念創意的影響不顯著。另一方面，概念結合訓練會影響概念結合時使用的詮釋方式，有概念結合訓練的人使用屬性相關詮釋的次數顯著較多；相反的，沒有概念結合訓練的人使用關係詮釋的次數則顯著較多。屬性交集的詮釋出現則隨著詮釋次數增加而上升；關係詮釋則隨著詮釋次數上升而下降。類比詮釋中抽象概念佔多數；屬性交集詮釋中具象概念佔多數。

Conceptual combination is combining two or more than two concepts to generate a new concept. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of conceptual combination training, abstractness of concepts, and number of interpretation attempts on the originality of the generated new concepts. 104 university students were randomly assigned to conceptual combination training groups and a control group. The subjects in conceptual combination training conditions were given conceptual combination training and practice either in small groups or in nominal groups. While the subjects in control group worked on a filler task. All the subjects then were asked to work on six noun-noun pairs which contains either an abstract noun or all concrete nouns three times. The results showed that the new ideas were more original as the number of interpretive attempts increased. There was also a trend that ideas generated after conceptual combination training were more original. Conceptual combination training also affect the types while subjects made interpretation during conceptual combination. Those receiving conceptual combination training made significantly more property – related interpretations than the control group, the control group relied more on relation interpretations during conceptual combination.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iv
目錄 v
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 x
第一章 導論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究問題與假設 5
1.3 變項定義 6
1.3.1 自變項 6
1.3.2 依變項 7
第二章 文獻回顧 8
2.1 創造的定義 8
2.2 創造力與想像力的關係 10
2.3 創造的認知機制 11
2.4 想像力的認知作業：概念結合 17
2.5 影響概念結合創意表現的因素 22
2.6 小結 27
第三章 方法 29
3.1 受試者 29
3.2 實驗材料、工具 29
3.3 自變項的操弄 31
3.3.1 概念結合訓練 31
3.3.2 嘗試次數 32
3.3.3 名詞配對的抽象程度 32
3.4 依變項的衡量 33
3.4.1 新概念的創意程度 33
3.4.2 詮釋種類的分析 35
3.5 程序 36
3.6 實驗設計 38
第四章 結果 39
4.1 新概念的創意程度 39
4.2 產生新概念的詮釋方式 48
4.2.1 關係詮釋 48
4.2.2 屬性相關詮釋 52
4.2.2.1屬性交集詮釋 56
4.2.2.2屬性轉移詮釋 59
4.2.2.3類比詮釋 64
4.2.2.4反向詮釋 68
4.3 實驗後問卷 71
4.4 新概念的創新程度與詮釋方式的關係 73
第五章 結論與討論 76
參考資料 81
附錄一：概念結合想像力測驗-題目 90
附錄二 實驗指導語 91
附錄三 概念結合詮釋方式的教學 97
附錄四 概念結合訓練材料 100
附錄五 控制組的名詞抽象程度評分材料 102
附錄六 概念結合測驗圖示 103

黃文毅. (2004). 以概念結合所產生之新屬性探討創造的認知歷程. 國立交通大學.

洪瑞雲（2006）。創新的認知歷程之探討：概念結合時新屬性產生的歷程。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（編號：NSC 95-2511-S-009-006）。

黃翊瑩. (2012). 概念結合與概念抽象程度對繪畫創造力的影響. 國立交通大學.

洪瑞雲，王精文，拾已寰，王愉敏（2013）以概念結合理論為基礎的一個想像力測驗的編製。測驗學刊。

洪瑞雲（2014）。想像力教學及測驗在工程與設計教育的落實子計畫一：概念結合與概念抽象程度對科技創意產生的影響（第一年）。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫（編號：NSC 102－2511－ S － 009－009 － MY03）。

洪瑞雲（2015）。想像力教學及測驗在工程與設計教育的落實子計畫一：概念結合與概念抽象程度對科技創意產生的影響（第二年）。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫（編號：NSC 102－2511－ S － 009－009 － MY03）。

洪瑞雲（2016）。想像力教學及測驗在工程與設計教育的落實子計畫一：概念結合與概念抽象程度對科技創意產生的影響（第三年）。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫（編號：NSC 102－2511－ S － 009－009 － MY03）。


Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review.

Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and personal freedom (Vol. 44). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process.

Bock, J. S., &Clifton, C. (2000). The role of salience in conceptual combination. Memory & Cognition, 28(8), 1378–1386.

Boden, M. A. (1994). What is creativity. Dimensions of Creativity, 75–117.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0040373

Costello, F. J., &Keane, M. T. (1997). Polysemy in conceptual combination: Testing the constraint theory of combination. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 137–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://edepositireland.ie/handle/2262/12947%5Cnhttp://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/12947/TCD-CS-96-19.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Costello, F. J., &Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24(2), 299–349.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1965). Artistic Problems and Their Solutions: An Exploration of Creativity in the Arts. University of Chicago, Committee on Human Development. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=Eb80PQAACAAJ

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New Yprk: Harper Collins.

Einstein, A., Infeld, L., &Hoffmann, B. (1938). The gravitational equations and the problem of motion. Annals of Mathematics, 65–100.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., &Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications.

Gagné, C. L. (2002). The competition-among-relations-in-nominals theory of conceptual combination: implications for stimulus class formation and class expansion. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78(3), 551–565. http://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.78-551

Gentner, D., &Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45.

Gerrig, R. J., &Bortfeld, H. (1999). Sense creation in and out of discourse contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 457–468.

Gerrig, R. J., &Murphy, G. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7(3–4), 205–230.

Goel, A. K. (1997). Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE Expert-Intelligent Systems and Their Applications. http://doi.org/10.1109/64.590078

Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(3), 348.

Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.

Guilford, J. P., &Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. McGraw-Hill Companies.

Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., &Wilson, R. C. (1958). Unusual uses test. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.

Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., &Korde, R. M. (2011). Conceptual Combinations and Subsequent Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 203–210. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.595659

Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492.

Lubart, T. I. (1994). Product-centered self-evaluation and the creative process. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Mackinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist, 20(4), 273.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17(7), 484.

McKellar, P. (1957). Imagination and thinking: A psychological analysis.

McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(3), 283–312.

Mednick, S. a. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850

Middleton, E. L., Rawson, K. a, &Wisniewski, E. J. (2011). How do we process novel conceptual combinations in context? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 64(4), 807–822. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.520414

Mobley, M. I., Doares, L. M., &Mumford, M. D. (1992). Process analytic models of creative capacities: Evidence for the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 5(2), 125–155. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419209534428

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P., &Supinski, E. P. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: IV. Category combination. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 59–71.

Murphy, K. R. (2002). Journal of Applied Psychology.

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination.

Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving.

Parnes, S. J., &Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of“ brainstorming” instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(4), 171.

Perkins, D. N. (1988). 15 The possibility of invention. The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, 362.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.

Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. a, &Stroebe, W. (2014). Effects of Problem Scope and Creativity Instructions on Idea Generation and Selection. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 185–191. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901084

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention: Is the Creative Process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10(4), 309–328. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1004_4

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific Creativity as Constrained Stochastic Behavior: The Integration of Product, Person, and Process Perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475–494. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475

Singer, D. G., &Singer, J. L. (2009). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Harvard University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56(4), 360.

Sternberg, R. J., &Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34(1), 1–31.

Sternberg, R. J., &Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press.
Tamariz, M., &Kirby, S. (2015). Culture: Copying, compression, and conventionality. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 171–183. http://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12144

Thagard, P., &Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 1–33. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01142.x

Torrance, E. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236–262.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Normstechnical Manual: Research Ed.: Verbal Tests, Forms A and B: Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Flere Materialer. Personell Press.

Wallas, G. (1926). Thr art of thought..

Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 1–40.

Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., &Sifonis, C. M. (2004). The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 1–9.

Ward, T. B., &Wickes, K. N. S. (2009). Stable and dynamic properties of category structure guide imaginative thought. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 15–23.

Weiner, R. P. (2000). Creativity and Beyond: Cultures. Values, and Change, State University of New York Press, Albany.

Wertheimer, M., &Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. Harper New York.

White, A. R. (1990). The language of imagination.

Wilkenfeld, M. J., &Ward, T. B. (2001). Similarity and emergence in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(1), 21–38. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2772

Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and Similarity in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434–453. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0024

Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(2), 167–183.

Wisniewski, E. J., &Love, B. (1998). Properties versus relations in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 38, 177–202 (1998), 38(38), 177–202. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2550

Yu, L., &Nickerson, J.V. (2011). Cooks or Cobblers? Crowd Creativity through Combination. Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1393–1402. http://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979147