that the conceptual link between thinking outside the box and creativity was a myth. Because the solution is, in hindsight, deceptively simple, clients tended to admit they should have thought of it themselves. No one, that is, before two different research Clarke Burnham with Kenneth Davis, and Joseph Alba with Robert Weisbergran another experiment using the same puzzle but a different research procedure. He challenged research subjects to connect all nine dots using just four straight lines without lifting their pencils from the page. If you have tried solving this puzzle, you can confirm that your first attempts usually involve sketching lines inside the imaginary square. The idea went viral (via 1970s-era media and word of mouth, of course). The correct solution, however, requires you to draw lines that extend beyond the area defined code promo pour pneu by the dots. But you will find numerous situations where a creative breakthrough is staring you in the face. Of course, in real life you wont find boxes.That this advice is useless when actually trying to solve a problem involving a real box should effectively have killed off the much widely disseminatedand therefore, much more dangerousmetaphor that out-of-the-box thinking spurs creativity. Would you like to guess the percentage of the participants in the second group who solved the puzzle correctly? In fact, only a meager 25 percent did. It was an appealing and apparently convincing message. Lets look a little more closely at these surprising results. Whats more, in statistical terms, this 5 percent improvement over the subjects of Guilfords original study is insignificant. In other words, the difference could easily be due to what statisticians call sampling error. Guilford was one of the first academic researchers who dared to conduct a study of creativity. The second group was told that the solution required the lines to be drawn outside the imaginary box bordering the dot array.