From Abstract to Applied: How Language Sophistication Shapes Creative Ideation for Novel Technologies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2025.1600Keywords:
Understanding, Creativity, Language Sophistication, InnovationAbstract
Understanding and creativity are intertwined cognitive processes that shape ideation and innovation potential in interdisciplinary teams. This article investigates how varying levels of language sophistication shape students’ conceptualizations of technology, guiding them toward either high-level abstract reasoning or concrete, domain-specific thinking. Through an experimental design involving 63 participants from diverse academic backgrounds, we examined how simplified, intermediate, and technical explanations of terahertz sensing technology affected participants' cognitive focus and creative application generation. Our findings demonstrate that language sophistication manipulates psychological distance and construal level: simplified explanations induce high-level construal leading to benefit-focused understanding and abstract applications, while technical explanations induce low-level construal resulting in mechanism-focused thinking and domain-specific ideas. Technical language also creates cognitive fixation effects that constrain cross-domain creativity, while abstract language serves as an effective de-fixation strategy. Intermediate complexity explanations yielded optimal ratings for perceived technological potential, suggesting a balance between accessibility and depth. Based on these findings, we propose a staged ideation model that strategically sequences language complexity to harness both divergent and convergent thinking processes. This research extends Construal Level Theory into innovation management contexts and provides practical tools for optimizing creative processes in interdisciplinary environments.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
ATTRACT. (2021). H-cube: Compact terahertz sensor based on micromechanical bolometers. ATTRACT Phase 2. Retrieved from https://phase2.attract-eu.com/projects/h- cube/
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92.
Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44- 54.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. MIT Press.
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177- 189.
Hargadon, A., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0200
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3-11.
Jia, L., Hirt, E. R., & Karpen, S. C. (2009). Lessons from a faraway land: The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1127-1131.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 54(6), i-95.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Smith, S. M. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. In Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (1995). The creative cognition approach. MIT Press.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20(1), 52-58.
Ward, T. B. (2007). Creative cognition as a window on creativity. Methods, 42(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.002
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge University Press.
Wiley, J. (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
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Subramanian Ramasubramanian, Mark Schuttelaars, Iulia-Maria Aldea, Raven Timmer, Kirsten van der Ham
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
