Noise is useful in solving creative problems.
It is believed that in order to most productively solve complex creative tasks that require concentration and immersion in the “stream”, a quiet, isolated place is best suited. In the article “Does noise always interfere? A study of the effects of ambient noise on creative thinking ”( PDF ), published in the Journal of Consumer Research , shows the results of experiments that refute this assertion.
Scientists conducted a series of tests to solve creative problems, dividing participants into several groups, each of which performed tasks in different acoustic conditions - with low (50 dB), medium (70 dB) and high (85 dB) noise levels. As a source of noise, a mixture of audio recordings of ambient noise was used in cafes, traffic and remote construction. 50 dB corresponds to a quiet conversation or a quiet street, 70 - to loud conversations at close range, a busy street, 85 - to a very noisy multi-lane highway, to loud cries. It turned out that the quality of problem solving in conditions of moderate noise is noticeably higher than in quiet or too loud conditions. With a loud noise, everything is clear - 85 decibels do not concentrate at all and cause too much discomfort - the participants tried to finish the task as quickly as possible in order to stop the “torture” and didn’t really care about the quality of the decisions. But why did the groups that worked in relative silence show a bad result?
It turns out that too comfortable conditions also inhibit creative thinking, as well as too uncomfortable. The average noise level caused the subjects light stress and, most importantly, made their thinking less “runaway” and stereotyped. In conditions of complete comfort, a thought rolls along a rough track, while constant sound stimuli make the train of thought less smooth and predictable. The most comfortable conditions are not at all the most productive. In order to stimulate creativity, it may be useful to get out of a quiet office in the nearest cafe or noisy open-space. At first glance, this contradicts the facts cited in the classic book by Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister "The Human Factor ".
However, this contradiction is only apparent. First, Demarco and Lister did not measure the level of noise in offices and offices, they made assumptions about the situation in the workplace on subjective questionnaires and indirect factors, such as the layout and density of the “population” of the office. Naturally, those who were not at all satisfied with their work for any reason were inclined to complain more about the noise, while those who worked with pleasure could simply not pay attention to it. Secondly, they rather studied the totality of all environmental factors, including not only noise, but the area per employee, the presence of windows, distractions and interruptions.
')
Most likely, it is the latter that affects the performance worst of all - telephone calls, calls from colleagues knock out much more than extraneous sounds. In the experiment with different levels of noise, the sound source was the speakers, and the sounds were impersonal in nature - no one pulled or interrupted the participants. So, apparently, the palm in the nomination “The best workplace for finding non-standard solutions” should be awarded to coffee shops and snack bars - unlike the general office, when strangers around you have no one to distract you with questions or call for a smoke break. However, as an option, you can try to quietly get into someone else's office ...
Scientists conducted a series of tests to solve creative problems, dividing participants into several groups, each of which performed tasks in different acoustic conditions - with low (50 dB), medium (70 dB) and high (85 dB) noise levels. As a source of noise, a mixture of audio recordings of ambient noise was used in cafes, traffic and remote construction. 50 dB corresponds to a quiet conversation or a quiet street, 70 - to loud conversations at close range, a busy street, 85 - to a very noisy multi-lane highway, to loud cries. It turned out that the quality of problem solving in conditions of moderate noise is noticeably higher than in quiet or too loud conditions. With a loud noise, everything is clear - 85 decibels do not concentrate at all and cause too much discomfort - the participants tried to finish the task as quickly as possible in order to stop the “torture” and didn’t really care about the quality of the decisions. But why did the groups that worked in relative silence show a bad result?
It turns out that too comfortable conditions also inhibit creative thinking, as well as too uncomfortable. The average noise level caused the subjects light stress and, most importantly, made their thinking less “runaway” and stereotyped. In conditions of complete comfort, a thought rolls along a rough track, while constant sound stimuli make the train of thought less smooth and predictable. The most comfortable conditions are not at all the most productive. In order to stimulate creativity, it may be useful to get out of a quiet office in the nearest cafe or noisy open-space. At first glance, this contradicts the facts cited in the classic book by Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister "The Human Factor ".
However, this contradiction is only apparent. First, Demarco and Lister did not measure the level of noise in offices and offices, they made assumptions about the situation in the workplace on subjective questionnaires and indirect factors, such as the layout and density of the “population” of the office. Naturally, those who were not at all satisfied with their work for any reason were inclined to complain more about the noise, while those who worked with pleasure could simply not pay attention to it. Secondly, they rather studied the totality of all environmental factors, including not only noise, but the area per employee, the presence of windows, distractions and interruptions.
')
Most likely, it is the latter that affects the performance worst of all - telephone calls, calls from colleagues knock out much more than extraneous sounds. In the experiment with different levels of noise, the sound source was the speakers, and the sounds were impersonal in nature - no one pulled or interrupted the participants. So, apparently, the palm in the nomination “The best workplace for finding non-standard solutions” should be awarded to coffee shops and snack bars - unlike the general office, when strangers around you have no one to distract you with questions or call for a smoke break. However, as an option, you can try to quietly get into someone else's office ...
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/146244/
All Articles