不同搜索空间限制下创造性问题解决的过程性搜索机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1077

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 尽管创造性思维的过程机制日益受到重视, 但在远距离联想问题解决等领域, 许多研究仍主要依赖正确率、反应时等结果性指标, 对该时间进程中搜索策略、模式变化关注相对不足。基于此, 研究通过两个研究考察不同搜索空间限制下创造性问题解决的过程性搜索机制。实验1针对远距离联想测验(RAT)在过程测量及线索维度控制上的局限, 开发多维度RAT材料库并验证其信效度, 结果发现任务表现与校标显著相关, 能有效测量不同搜索空间限制下的创造性思维过程; 实验2加入语义分析检验不同搜索空间限制条件下的行为表现与过程性指标, 结果发现高限制空间下个体倾向线索引导的局部搜索并在接近目标时呈突变式变化, 其语义跳跃更频繁, 低限制下倾向全局搜索, 以渐进式趋近目标。综上, 研究为考察不同搜索空间限制中联想-控制交互支持创造性问题解决提供了工具, 并为理解该过程性搜索机制提供了新的视角。

关键词: 创造性问题解决, 搜索空间, 搜索策略, 搜索模式, 语义网络

Abstract: Creative thinking relies on dynamic interactions between associative idea generation and cognitive control, and semantic search processes are at the core of this system. However, traditional Remote Associates Test (RAT) paradigms lack fine-grained control over search space constraints and overlook the dynamic nature of the creative thinking process. This study aimed to explore how search space constraints modulate semantic search strategies and patterns during creative problem-solving, using a newly developed Multi-dimensional RAT (MD-RAT) to address these limitations.
We ran two separate experiments for this research. In Experiment 1, we developed and validated the MD-RAT. This task adjusts search space constraints by changing the number of cue dimensions (shape, function, pairing) that link cue words to the target word. A total of 265 healthy undergraduates participated in material validation and psychometric testing. We measured participants' task accuracy and response times, and tested how these task results correlated with their creative achievement, personality openness, and verbal fluency. In Experiment 2, we recruited 42 participants and used a within-subjects design to directly compare high- and low-constraint conditions. We analyzed both behavioral performance (accuracy, number of responses) and fine-grained process indicators, including semantic similarity, category switching, and the sequential dependency of responses.
Our results first confirmed that the MD-RAT has good reliability and validity. Across both high- and low-constraint conditions, participants' task accuracy was significantly correlated with creative achievement, openness, and verbal fluency. We also found clear differences between the two conditions: the high-constraint condition had higher accuracy and fewer total responses than the low-constraint condition, while the low-constraint condition saw far more category switching. Our semantic similarity analyses gave a clear view of the search strategies participants used: in high-constraint conditions, people adopted local search strategies centered on dominant cues, with higher intra-cue than inter-cue similarity. In contrast, low constraints led to global search with more frequent semantic jumps. Besides, we found that search patterns differed that low constraints showed progressive increases in semantic similarity to targets, while high constraints displayed abrupt similarity spikes near solutions.
These findings make it clear that search space constraints systematically shape the creative thinking process. High constraints support focused, efficient local search, while low constraints encourage open, divergent global exploration. Beyond this, the MD-RAT provides a robust tool for investigating dynamic semantic search mechanisms, and helps us better understand how associative strategies and cognitive control work together to support creative problem solving.

Key words: creative problem solving, search space, search strategy, search pattern, semantic network

刘迪, 王彦悦, 陈群林, 邱江. (2026). 不同搜索空间限制下创造性问题解决的过程性搜索机制. 心理学报, 58(6), 1077-1089.

LIU Di, WANG Yanyue, CHEN Qunlin, QIU Jiang. (2026). Processual search mechanisms in creative problem solving under different search space constraints. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(6), 1077-1089.

参考文献

[1] Beaty R. E., Benedek M., Silvia P. J., & Schacter D. L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 87-95.
[2] Beaty, R. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2021). Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open platform for computing semantic distance.Behavior Research Methods, 53(2), 757-780.
[3] Beaty, R. E., & Kenett, Y. N. (2023). Associative thinking at the core of creativity.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(7), 671-683.
[4] Beaty R. E., Kenett Y. N., Hass R. W., & Schacter D. L. (2023). Semantic memory and creativity: The costs and benefits of semantic memory structure in generating original ideas.Thinking & Reasoning, 29(2), 305-339.
[5] Beaty R. E., Silvia P. J., Nusbaum E. C., Jauk E., & Benedek M. (2014). The roles of associative and executive processes in creative cognition.Memory & Cognition, 42(7), 1186-1197.
[6] Becker, M., & Cabeza, R. (2023). Assessing creativity independently of language: A language-independent remote associate task (LI-RAT).Behavior Research Methods, 55(1), 85-102.
[7] Becker M., Sommer T., & Kühn S. (2020). Verbal insight revisited: fMRI evidence for early processing in bilateral insulae for solutions with AHA! experience shortly after trial onset.Human Brain Mapping, 41(1), 30-45.
[8] Bendetowicz D., Urbanski M., Aichelburg C., Levy R., & Volle E. (2017). Brain morphometry predicts individual creative potential and the ability to combine remote ideas.Cortex, 86, 216-229.
[9] Bendetowicz D., Urbanski M., Garcin B., Foulon C., Levy R., Bréchemier M. -L., ... Volle E. (2018). Two critical brain networks for generation and combination of remote associations.Brain, 141(1), 217-233.
[10] Benedek M., Jauk E., Sommer M., Arendasy M., & Neubauer A. C. (2014). Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity.Intelligence, 46, 73-83.
[11] Bernard M., Kenett Y. N., Ovando-Tellez M., Benedek M., & Volle E. (2019). Building Individual Semantic Networks and Exploring their Relationships with Creativity.Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 41, 138-144.
[12] Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 634-639.
[13] Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese Word and Character Frequencies Based on Film Subtitles.PLoS ONE, 5(6), e10729.
[14] Chen J., Xu T. W., & Chen Q. L. (2024). Development and preliminary exploration of Chinese word remote associates test.Psychology: Techniques and Application, 12(5), 283-295.
[陈静, 许天委, 陈群林. (2024). 中文词语远距离联想测验的编制及初步探索.心理技术与应用, 12(5), 283-295.]
[15] Christensen A. P., Kenett Y. N., Cotter K. N., Beaty R. E., & Silvia P. J. (2018). Remotely close associations: Openness to experience and semantic memory structure.European Journal of Personality, 32(4), 480-492.
[16] Davidson J. E.(2003). Insights about insightful problem solving. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 149-175). Cambridge University Press.
[17] Frith E., Kane M. J., Welhaf M. S., Christensen A. P., Silvia P. J., & Beaty R. E. (2021). Keeping creativity under control: Contributions of attention control and fluid intelligence to divergent thinking.Creativity Research Journal, 33(2), 138-157.
[18] Hass, R. W. (2017). Semantic search during divergent thinking.Cognition, 166, 344-357.
[19] Hills T. T., Jones M. N., & Todd P. M. (2012). Optimal foraging in semantic memory.Psychological Review, 119(2), 431-440.
[20] Hills T. T., Todd P. M., & Goldstone R. L. (2008). Search in external and internal spaces: Evidence for generalized cognitive search processes.Psychological Science, 19(8), 802-808.
[21] Hills T. T., Todd P. M., Lazer D., Redish A. D., Couzin I. D., & Cognitive Search Research Group. (2015). Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(1), 46-54.
[22] Huang P., Chen H., & Liu C. (2012). The development of Chinese word remote associates test for college students.Psychological Testing, 59(4), 581-607.
[23] Kenett Y. N., Anaki D., & Faust M. (2014). Investigating the structure of semantic networks in low and high creative persons.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 407.
[24] Kenett, Y., & Austerweil, J. L. (2016). Examining Search Processes in Low and High Creative Individuals with RandomWalks. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 38, 313-318.
[25] Kenett, Y. N., & Faust, M. (2019). A semantic network cartography of the creative mind.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(4), 271-274.
[26] Knoblich G., Ohlsson S., Haider H., & Rhenius D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1534-1555.
[27] Lezama R., Gómez-Ariza C. J., & Bajo M. T. (2023). Individual differences in semantic priming and inhibitory control predict performance in the Remote Associates Test (RAT).Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, 101426.
[28] Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process.Psychological Review, 69(3), 220-232.
[29] Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. Keane & K. Gilhooley (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1-44). Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
[30] Ovando-Tellez M., Benedek M., Kenett Y. N., Hills T., Bouanane S., Bernard M., ... Volle E. (2022). An investigation of the cognitive and neural correlates of semantic memory search related to creative ability.Communications Biology, 5(1), 604.
[31] Ovando-Tellez M., Kenett Y. N., Benedek M., Bernard M., Belo J., Beranger B., Bieth T., & Volle E. (2023). Brain connectivity-based prediction of combining remote semantic associates for creative thinking.Creativity Research Journal, 35(3), 522-546.
[32] Runco, M. A. (2025). Updating the standard definition of creativity to account for the artificial creativity of AI.Creativity Research Journal, 37(1), 1-5.
[33] Silvia P. J., Beaty R. E., & Nusbaum E. C. (2013). Verbal fluency and creativity: General and specific contributions of broad retrieval ability (Gr) factors to divergent thinking.Intelligence, 41(5), 328-340.
[34] Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970.American psychologist, 26(2), 145-159.
[35] Smith K. A., Huber D. E., & Vul E. (2013). Multiply- constrained semantic search in the remote associates test.Cognition, 128(1), 64-75.
[36] Wang, Z. Q., & Zhang, X. L. (2020). The Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire.Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 18(3), 390-397.
[王战旗, 张兴利. (2020). 创造力成就问卷的中文修订.心理与行为研究, 18(3), 390-397.]
[37] Wiley, J., & Jarosz, A. F. (2012). Working memory capacity, attentional focus, and problem solving.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 258-262.
[38] Zare, M., & Flinchbaugh, C. (2019). Voice, creativity, and big five personality traits: A meta-analysis.Human Performance, 32(1), 30-51.