Method

To investigate the hypotheses we undertook a small experimental study, using a 2 (motor expressions) × 2 (problem situations) between-subjects design. This experimental design enables us to test a direct link between the motor expressions, emotion, and creativity. It also enables testing the effects of incompatibility on creativity. That is, randomized assignment of both motor expressions and problem situations results can introduce incompatibility and no incompatibility. Incompatibility can therefore be tested as an interaction effect between the two independent variables. Assignment of the participants to the experimental conditions was randomized.

4.5.1

Participants

In total, 32 people (18 females, 14 males, Mage=32, SDage=7.2) participated in the experiment. Two participants were excluded from the sample for failing to e e ute the e pe i e t s i st u tions. This resulted in 30 usable cases. The participants were students and employees of City University London.

4.5.2

Materials and measurements

4.5.2.1Creative task

To gather data based on which creativity could be assessed, the participants were instructed to use a variation of the AUT (section 3.3.1). The task used in this study differed from the way the AUT is typically used, in that its focus was on generating ideas that solved problem situations, rather than generating uses for common objects (cf. Guilford, 1967). The two problem situations used in the creative task are described in section 4.4.2. To help ensure that this task emulated the idea generation step in the creative

87

process, we followed suggestions by (Lee et al., 2004), and emphasized originality alongside fluency and flexibility in the instructions. That is, participants were i st u ted to … o e up ith as a , di erse, a d

original solutions to the given problem situation as you can . Pa ti ipants

were given 5 minutes to do this.

4.5.2.2Assessment of creativity

To assess creativity based on the data gathered using the AUT we used the objective scoring method (section 3.3.2). We used the classical approach to objective scoring as proposed by (Guilford, 1967). That is, we counted the amount of ideas that a participant generated (fluency), the amount of semantic concepts used in the generated ideas (flexibility), and we assessed the statisti al i f e ue of the pa ti ipa ts ideas, given the ideas generated by all the participants (originality). Originality was assessed by counting the ideas of which there were no more than two instances in the whole sample (14% of the total amount of ideas in this study) (cf. Silvia et al., 2008). We did, however, not correct the originality score for fluency, which introduces measurement error (section 3.3.2). This weakens the validity of the way creativity is assessed, which we need to accept in this study.

4.5.2.3Assessment of emotion

Participants self-reported positive and negative emotions, as the unpleasantness-pleasantness they felt during the creative task, using an 8- point Likert scale (1=very unpleasant, 8=very pleasant). Approaches to minimise possible threats to the validity of the way we assess emotion (section 3.3.3), were implemented as follows: scales rather than categories, with negative and positive emotion words at opposite ends, were used as a

88

response format, which we felt best mimics the aspects of an emotion people can distinguish during self-report; to support people in accessing their feelings we made sure that a questionnaire that contained the self- report measure was administered right after the creative task; and to (further) support recall of feelings we phrased the instructions alongside this self-report measure in a manner that referred explicitly to the feelings (unpleasant-pleasant) and the situation (the creative task) that were of interest to the study, Did you experience the idea generation task as

(un)pleasant? We assumed these would support the construct validity of

this measurement instrument.

4.5.2.4Manipulation checks

Several manipulation checks, and checks for possible alternative causes, were carried out to support the internal validity of the study design (section 3.3.4). Because we suspected that there were differences between the poses with regard to the effort it takes to keep them throughout the task, e.g. the negative avoidance expression requires a slight increase in muscle tension, whereas the positive approach expression requires taking a comfortable posture, people self-reported the degree to which keeping the pose was not effortful or effortful (1=little effort, 8=a lot of effort) and whether they were able to keep the pose throughout the creative task (1=unable, 8=able). Furthermore, to check whether the positive and negative problem situation indeed associated with positive and negative emotion people rated the unpleasantness-pleasantness of the problem situations (1=very unpleasant, 8=very pleasant) on a Likert scale (8 points).

89

4.5.3

Procedure

On arrival, participants were seated, handed an overview of the e pe i e t s p o edu e, su sequently signed informed consent, and were asked to report some personal details (age, gender). After this, instructions were given for either the positive approaching, or the negative avoiding pose. These included that participants should try to keep their pose throughout the creative task. Furthermore, these instructions included a request to the participants that they should ensure that the pose was not uncomfortable, and that when they forgot to keep the pose, they should simply take it again when they realised this happened. The instructions for the poses were assigned randomly. After these instructions the participant took the instructed pose and attempted to keep the pose until after the idea generation task. Next, participants were handed instructions for the idea generation task. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in either the positive or negative problem situation. After the imagination procedure, participants were asked to come up with, and write down on paper, as many original ideas as they could in response to the given problem situation within 5 minutes. Time was kept by the researcher. Directly following the idea generation task the participants were asked to stop their instructed pose. After this a questionnaire was handed to the participants which they filled in right away. This questionnaire contained the measurement instruments used to assess emotion and carry out the manipulation checks. Note that the assessment of creativity was done at a later stage by the researcher. That is, after the data of all the participants was collected. Following completion of the questionnaire, participants were debriefed, and received a bar of chocolate for their efforts. A graphic representation of the procedure is presented in Figure 6.

90 In fo rm a ti o n P o se T a sk R a ti n g s Explanation procedure Informed consent Personal details Instructions pose T im e i n d ic a to r Take and keep pose Instructions task Task: AUT (5 min) Stop pose Ass. emotion manip. checks Debrief Assessment creativity

Figure 6 Graphic representation of the order and timing of information provided about the experiment, the moment the instructed pose was taken and thus when allegedly emotion

should be influenced, the moment task was done, and ratings used in the procedure.