Controlling stimulus ambiguity reduces spurious creative ideation variance in a cyclic adaptation of the alternative uses task
Beaty, R., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J. & Schacter, D. L. Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 87–95 (2016).
Google Scholar
Schubert, E. Creativity is optimal novelty and maximal positive affect: A new definition based on the spreading activation model. Front. Neurosci. 15, 612379 (2021).
Google Scholar
Cortes, R. A., Weinberger, A. B., Daker, R. J. & Green, A. E. Re-examining prominent measures of divergent and convergent creativity. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 27, 90–93 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ausubel, D. P. Creativity, general creative abilities, and the creative individual. Bull. Counc. Res. Music Educ. 3, i–v (1964).
Runco, M. A. & Jaeger, G. J. The standard definition of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 24, 92–96 (2012).
Google Scholar
Madore, K. P., Jing, H. G. & Schacter, D. L. Divergent creative thinking in young and older adults: Extending the effects of an episodic specificity induction. Mem. Cogn. 44, 974–988 (2016).
Google Scholar
Kharkhurin, A. V. Creativity.4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 26, 338–352 (2014).
Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. Taking the U.S. Patent office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creat. Res. J. 24, 97–106 (2012).
Google Scholar
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B. & Smith, S. M. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, And Applications (MIT Press, 1996).
Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. Creativity, personality and the convergent-divergent continuum. In Critical Creative Processes (ed. Eysenck, H. J.) 95–114 (Hampton Press, 2003).
Guilford, J. P. The nature of human intelligence (McGraw-Hill, 1967).
Palmiero, M., Nori, R., Piccardi, L. & D’Amico, S. Divergent thinking: The role of decision-making styles. Creat. Res. J. 32, 323–332 (2020).
Google Scholar
Gabora, L. The neural basis and evolution of divergent and convergent thought. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity (eds Jung, R. E. & Vartanian, O.) 58–70 (Cambridge University Press, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316556238.005.
Google Scholar
Leon, S. A., Altmann, L. J. P., Abrams, L., Gonzalez Rothi, L. J. & Heilman, K. M. Divergent task performance in older adults: Declarative memory or creative potential?. Creat. Res. J. 26, 21–29 (2014).
Google Scholar
Mednick, S. A. & Mednick, M. T. Examiner’s Manual, remote Associates test : College and Adult Forms 1 and 2 (Houghton Mifflin Boston, 1967).
Bowden, E. M. & Jung-Beeman, M. Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35, 634–639 (2003).
Google Scholar
Wu, C.-L., Huang, S.-Y., Chen, P.-Z. & Chen, H.-C. A systematic review of creativity-related studies applying the remote associates test from 2000 to 2019. Front. Psychol. 11, 573432 (2020).
Google Scholar
Alhashim, A. et al. Work in Progress: Assessing Creativity of Alternative Uses Task Responses: A Detailed Procedure. in 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings 35612 (ASEE Conferences, 2020). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–35612.
Beaty, R. & Silvia, P. J. Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent thinking tasks. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 6, 309–319 (2012).
Google Scholar
Benedek, M. et al. To create or to recall original ideas: Brain processes associated with the imagination of novel object uses. Cortex 99, 93–102 (2018).
Google Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. H. & Wynn, V. Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. Br. J. Psychol. 98, 611–625 (2007).
Google Scholar
Hass, R. W. & Beaty, R. Use or consequences: Probing the cognitive difference between two measures of divergent thinking. Front. Psychol. 9, 2327 (2018).
Google Scholar
Vartanian, O. et al. The relationship between methods of scoring the alternate uses task and the neural correlates of divergent thinking: Evidence from voxel-based morphometry. NeuroImage 223, 117325 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bai, H., Leseman, P. P. M., Moerbeek, M., Kroesbergen, E. H. & Mulder, H. Serial order effect in divergent thinking in five- to six-year-olds: Individual differences as related to executive functions. J. Intell. 9, 20 (2021).
Google Scholar
Cardoso, C. & Badke-Schaub, P. The influence of different pictorial representations during idea generation. J. Creat. Behav. 45, 130–146 (2011).
Google Scholar
George, T. & Wiley, J. Need something different? Here’s what’s been done: Effects of examples and task instructions on creative idea generation. Mem. Cogn. 48, 226–243 (2020).
Google Scholar
Saffran, E. M., Coslett, H. B. & Keener, M. T. Differences in word associations to pictures and words. Neuropsychologia 41, 1541–1546 (2003).
Google Scholar
Chrysikou, E. G., Motyka, K., Nigro, C., Yang, S.-I. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. Functional fixedness in creative thinking tasks depends on stimulus modality. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 10, 425–435 (2016).
Google Scholar
George, T., Mielicki, M. K. & Wiley, J. Great expectations: Misleading effects of images in the alternate uses task. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 17, 56–67 (2023).
Google Scholar
Benedek, M. & Neubauer, A. C. Revisiting Mednick’s model on creativity-related differences in associative hierarchies. Evidence for a common path to uncommon thought. J. Creat. Behav. 47, 273–289 (2013).
Google Scholar
Beaty, R. & Johnson, D. R. Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open platform for computing semantic distance. Behav. Res. 53, 757–780 (2021).
Google Scholar
Barbot, B. The dynamics of creative ideation: Introducing a new assessment paradigm. Front. Psychol. 9, 2529 (2018).
Google Scholar
Beaty, R., Kenett, Y., Hass, R. W. & Schacter, D. L. 2019 A Fan Effect for Creative Thought: Semantic Richness Facilitates Idea Quantity but Constrains Idea Quality. 10.31234/osf.io/pfz2g.
Forthmann, B. et al. The be-creative effect in divergent thinking: The interplay of instruction and object frequency. Intelligence 57, 25–32 (2016).
Google Scholar
Brodeur, M. B., Guérard, K. & Bouras, M. Bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS) phase II: 930 new normative photos. PLoS One 9, e106953 (2014).
Google Scholar
Krautz, A. E. & Keuleers, E. LinguaPix database: A megastudy of picture-naming norms. Behav. Res. 54, 941–954 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. JOSS 4, 1686 (2019).
Google Scholar
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2021).
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67. (2015).
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Soft. 82. (2017).
Lüdecke, D. sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. (2022).
Ben-Shachar, M., Lüdecke, D. & Makowski, D. effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. JOSS 5, 2815 (2020).
Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68, 255–278 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S. & Baayen, H. Parsimonious Mixed Models. Preprint at (2018).
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H. & Bates, D. Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. J. Mem. Lang. 94, 305–315 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. & Bates, D. M. Mixed-Effects Models in Sand S-PLUS (Springer, 2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1.
Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 43, 997–1013 (1982).
Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45, 357–376 (1983).
Google Scholar
Cseh, G. M. & Jeffries, K. K. A scattered CAT: A critical evaluation of the consensual assessment technique for creativity research. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 13, 159–166 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Lee, J., Baer, J. & Lee, S. Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Think. Skills Creat. 2, 96–106 (2007).
Google Scholar
Haught, C. The role of constraints in creative sentence production. Creat. Res. J. 27, 160–166 (2015).
Google Scholar
Tromp, C. Integrated constraints in creativity: Foundations for a unifying model. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 27, 41–61 (2023).
Google Scholar
link
