paradigm
It has been argued that both divergent and convergent thinking operate during the creative process and both are required to produce creative products (Cropley, 2006; Runco, 2003). Cropley (2006) and Runco’s (2003) accounts suggest that divergent and convergent thinking are coupled stages in the creative thinking process which implies that shifts between divergent and convergent thinking occur during the creative process. Cropley (2006) argues that divergent thinking involves processes such as making associations between remote ideas and that it supports idea generation, both key characteristics of the associative mode of thinking (Gabora & Ranjan, 2013; Howard-Jones, 2002). Convergent thinking is characterized as involving logical processes and honing in on a single best answer, supporting the exploration and evaluation of ideas (Cropley, 2006). These are key characteristics of the analytic mode of thinking (Gabora & Ranjan, 2013; Howard-Jones, 2002). Examining shifts between divergent and convergent thinking would appear to provide an indirect means of examining shifts between associative and analytic modes of thinking that are hypothesized to occur during the creative process (Gabora & Ranjan, 2013; Howard-Jones, 2002).
The empirical findings reported by Vartanian, Martindale and colleagues in chapter one provide evidence that more creative individuals have a greater capacity to match their mode of thinking to the task requirements than less creative individuals. However, the different tasks that Vartanian, Martindale and colleagues used appeared to lack face validity as activities that occur during the creative process. Vartanian, Martindale and colleagues used the hick (Hick, 1952), concept verification (Knorr & Neubauer, 1996), negative priming (Claridge et. al, 1992) and global precedence tasks (Navon, 1977). The Hick task assesses the speed with which participants can detect and react to a stimulus and the concept verification task the speed with which they can understand a rule and whether a subsequently presented object satisfies that rule. These two tasks were chosen to assess the extent to which participants were able to effectively apply focused attention, with faster reaction times indicative of an ability to focus attention to a greater extent. The negative priming task assesses the extent to which participants are able to resist inferring information from a previously presented trial when responding on a current trial. The global precedence task assesses the extent to which participants are able to respond accurately based on global
25
features of a stimulus and resist inference from local features or vice-versa. These two tasks were chosen to assess the extent to which participants defocused attention, with slower reaction times indicative of a defocusing attention to a greater degree. It does seem possible that the concept verification task could capture facets of analytical evaluative thinking that occur during the creative process; specifically, evaluating whether an idea corresponds to an internalized rule and therefore whether it is appropriate. However, it is much less clear how the negative priming and global-precedence tasks capture facets of activities that could occur during the creative process. Further, these two tasks don’t appear to capture the generation of novel ideas which is a key component of the creative process hypothesized to be supported by the associative mode of thought (Howard-Jones, 2002; Kaufman, 2011; Gabora & Ranjan, 2013).
The tasks used by Vartanian, Martindale and colleagues were only completed one at a time and therefore they did not offer the possibility to examine the process of actually shifting
between different modes of thought. A novel experimental paradigm was used in the present
study to address these issues. It did so by investigating how more creative individuals differed from less creative individuals in their capacity to switch between one set of problems that appeared to require divergent thinking and another set appearing to require convergent thinking. This paradigm therefore enabled an examination of how the capacity to actually
shift between modes differed as a function of participant’s creativity.
A key issue for the present study was which activities were used to induce convergent and divergent thinking within the experimental paradigm. Compound remote associates problems (Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003) were used to induce convergent thinking. Performance on these problems was taken as the measure of the extent to which participants were able to engage in convergent thinking. Compound remote associate problems were chosen to induce convergent thinking for a number of reasons. Firstly, performance on them is based on easy to score measures of correct or incorrect solution generation and speed of solution generation (Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003). Secondly, since the present paradigm involved repeated switching between divergent and convergent problems, multiple convergent problems were required. Bowden & Jung-Beeman (2003) compiled a list of 144 remote associate problems (RAPs) from which problems were selected for the current study. This provided a large bank of similar convergent tasks allowing for an examination of repeated switching that was not- confounded by exposure to the same items previously or different types of convergent tasks.
26
Thirdly, there is evidence that remote associate problems require convergent thinking. Taft & Rossiter (1966) suggested that performance on remote associate problems depends on a participant’s ability to choose the answer that best fits the cues presented and performance on them has previously been correlated with measures of both verbal and non-verbal IQ (Mendlesohn, 1976; Taft & Rossiter, 1966). Performance on remote associate problems is also very strongly correlated with ratings of creativity for architects (r = .70) and moderately correlated with creativity ratings of graduate psychology students (r = .55) (Mednick, 1962; Mednick, 1963). The findings indicating performance on remote associate problems correlate with creativity ratings suggest that RAPs tap aspects of convergent thinking required during the creative process. Taft & Rossiter’s (1966) proposal that remote associate problems assess the ability to choose the answer that best fits the cues presented appears to reflect a similar process to the ability to evaluate ideas in order to choose the best one. Evaluation has been considered to be underpinned by the operation of the analytic mode of thinking (Gabora & Ranjan, 2013). The extent to which remote associate problems induced convergent thinking in the present study was assessed by examining the correlation between performance on them and a measure of Intelligence. Measures of IQ are generally considered to be measures of convergent thinking (Guilford, 1959 cited in Clark, Veldman & Thorpe, 1965).
A novel task was devised to induce divergent thinking in the present study. This was done in order to keep the stimuli involved in completing the divergent task as similar as possible to the convergent task, with the only difference between them being the extent to which divergent thinking was required. Classic divergent thinking tasks such as the alternate uses (AUT) appear to differ from remote associate problems not only in the extent to which they require divergent thinking but also on the process of retrieval of solutions. For instance, uses of objects on the AUT could be generated by imagining uses, which may draw upon visual imagery (Chyrsikou & Thompson-Schill, 2010). Gilhooly, Fiortou, Anthony, and Wynn (2007) reported that strategies for the generation of alternate uses rely on processes such as the retrieval from long term memory of pre known uses and imagining disassembling the object from which uses are generated into components; a process clearly involving visual imagery. In contrast, performance on remote associate problems appears to be based on a more uniformly verbal process of searching memory for a word that can form a connective link between the three cues presented (Mednick, 1962).
27
Switching between performing divergent thinking tasks such as the (AUT) and remote associates problems could therefore involve switching between a more visual mode of processing to imagine alternate uses and a more verbal mode of processing to identify connecting link words. This would make it an impure paradigm within which to assess the capacity to shift between different modes of thinking. A novel divergent thinking task was therefore designed in order to develop a means of inducing divergent thinking that engaged verbal processes to a similar extent to remote associate problems. The novel measure required participants to generate as many creative examples of compound words as they could from single ‘seed’ words, with ‘seeds’ being the solution words from the bank of remote associate problems compiled by Bowden & Jung-Beeman (2003). The novel task required was in essence a remote associate problem performed in reverse and hence these types of problems were labelled inverse remote associate problems (I-RAPs). The task instructions asked participants to generate multiple solutions which were creative, less obvious, unusual and uncommon. These criteria are in line with the characteristics of divergent thinking as defined by Cropley (2006) and as such the novel task has face validity as a means of inducing divergent thinking. The extent to which inverse remote associate problems induce divergent thinking was assessed in the present study by examining the correlation between performance on them and self-report measures of creativity and openness; which have previously been shown to correlate with divergent thinking (Carson, Higgins and Peterson, 2005).
A key issue for the present study was also how to assess participant’s level of success in shifting between different modes of thinking. The experimental paradigm used in the present study was used previously in research on task switching (Monsell, 2003). Remote associate problems and inverse remote associate problems were presented within a task switching paradigm where performance on each type of task within switch blocks is compared to blocks where only one type of task is performed repeatedly. Mixing costs have been shown in the form of slower performance when switching within a block in comparison to when only one task is performed within a block (Monsell, 2003). An explanation given for this is that there are carry-over effects of task set activation or inhibition from the preceding task to the one currently being performed and participants must spend time reconfiguring their task set to perform the current task (Monsell, 2003).
28
The above account bears some similarity to accounts within serial models of shifting which suggest that one mode of thinking must be disengaged prior to the other mode being engaged (Gabora & Ranjan, 2013; Sowden, Pringle & Gabora, 2014). It also fits with the suggestion that a possible measure of successful shifting is the ability to maintain successful task performance when having to switch between performing tasks that require different modes of thinking. Thus, a comparison of participant’s performance within switching and pure blocks, where only one task is performed throughout, would appear to allow a test of the prediction that more creative, in comparison to less creative, individuals demonstrate a heightened capacity to shift between different modes of thinking.
Switch costs were measured in the present experiment by comparing performance within switch blocks that require switching between remote associate (RAPs) and inverse remote associate (I-RAPs) problems to performance within pure blocks containing only one type of problem. Switch costs were defined as the negative effect on measures of performance within switch compared to within pure blocks. The predictions for the present experiment were that individuals reporting lower levels of creativity would exhibit greater switch costs than those individuals reporting higher levels of creativity. Those reporting higher levels of creativity were predicted either to exhibit low switch costs or no switch costs at all. It was also predicted that individuals higher in self-reported creativity would exhibit better performance on measures of both convergent and divergent thinking than individuals lower in creativity. It was predicted that individuals higher in IQ would exhibit better performance on measures of convergent thinking.
Method Participants
An opportunity sample of fifty-two participants was recruited on site at the University of Surrey. Forty-eight participants were recruited in order to ensure that the order of presentation of the two conditions (switch vs. pure) was counterbalanced across the sample. Recruiting fifty-two participants ensured that this criterion was still met even after some participants were excluded from the analysis. Participants were recruited from posters and in person at communal areas within cafeterias and University buildings on campus and outside
29
on campus grounds. They were also recruited from the students union and from within the School of Psychology. A first batch of participants (N = 27) were informed that upon agreeing to participate they would be entered into a prize draw to win £50. A second batch (N = 25) were informed that they would receive £8 upon completion of the study. Participants were members of staff and students at the University, 16 of whom were male and 36 of whom were female. Prospective participants were screened prior to testing in order to ensure that they were native speakers of English. Participants were also screened both prospectively and retrospectively, in order to determine whether or not they were dyslexic5. All participants were between 18 and 27 years of age (M =22.52, SD = 2.39). One participant was retrospectively found to be a non-native English speaker and one found to be dyslexic. Data from these participants were excluded from the analysis. The experiment was approved by the University of Surrey Ethics Committee.
Measures and covariates
Method of inducing shifts between convergent and divergent thinking
A novel experimental paradigm was devised to induce shifting between convergent and divergent thinking. Convergent remote associate problems (RAPs) were selected from a list of compound remote associate problems compiled by Bowden & Jung-Beeman (2003). These consisted of three target words presented on a computer screen in the format shown in figure 1.
5
Information about whether or not participants were dyslexic was only identified as important once testing was already underway. As such some participants had to be contacted by email and asked about this retrospectively.
30
basket eight snow
ball
Figure 1. Displaying the format in which convergent RAP problems (left) and divergent I-RAP problems (right)
are presented.
The goal of the task was to identify a solution word which could form a compound word or phrase with all three words. For example, “ball” here links all three to form “basket-ball”, “eight-ball” and “snow-ball”. Divergent I-RAP problems consisted of the single solution words given in Bowden & Jung-Beeman’s list (2003) which were used as ‘seeds’ from which participants were asked to generate multiple compound words and phrases. For example, if they were given the word “ball”, as shown on the right in figure 1, they could generate “basket-ball”, “eight-ball”, “snow-ball”, “ball-room”, “ball-gown” etc. The three target words and seed word were chosen at random from a list of 144 examples included previously in research by (Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003). A random number generator programmed into the computer program e-prime was used to select the problems and the order in which they were to be presented for each block and for each participant. The randomisation of which seed words were selected across participants and across blocks was performed as there was evidence that some remote associate problems may be easier to solve than others and hence randomisation across participants would help minimise systematic effects due to problems in any block or for any participant being easier or harder than those in other blocks or those administered to other participants (Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003).
The problems themselves were presented to participants using Microsoft Power-Point. Participants completed 4 blocks, each consisting of 24 problems. Two blocks were pure blocks comprising of either 24 convergent or 24 divergent problems only. Two blocks were switch blocks comprising of both convergent and divergent problems, presented one after the other in an alternating sequence. Both switch blocks comprised of 12 RAP problems
31
interleaved with 12, I-RAP problems with one switch block starting with a RAP problem (RAP, I-RAP etc.) and the other starting with an I-RAP problem (I-RAP, RAP etc.).
Assessment of creativity
Two measures were used to assess the creativity of participants; the creative achievement questionnaire (CAQ) (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005) and the creative personality scale (CPS) (Gough, 1978).
Creative achievement questionnaire (CAQ)
The CAQ is a self-report measure which is designed to capture creative achievement across ten different domains; visual arts, music, dance, architectural design, creative writing, humour, inventions, scientific discovery, theatre and film and culinary arts (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005). Individual domain scores are then summed to give a total score for creative achievement which has been shown to be stable across different time points (r = .81). The CAQ has good internal consistency (α = .96) and split-half reliability (α = .92); and shows predictive validity with a positive correlation between total CAQ score and the creativity of collages as rated by real artists (r= .65). The CAQ also shows reasonable convergent validity with other measures of creativity, such as the creative personality scale (Gough, 1979), and discriminant validity with IQ and a measure of social desirability (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005).
Creative personality scale (CPS)
The CPS is a checklist of 30 adjectives, with 18 items positively related to creativity and 12 items negatively related to creativity (Gough, 1979). Participants are instructed to indicate which adjectives best describe themselves and to tick all that apply. One point is given for each positive adjective checked and one point subtracted for each negative item checked. A score for creativity is therefore obtained by summing the positive adjectives ticked and subtracting the negative ones ticked, giving a range between -12 and 18 (Gough, 1979). Both positive and negative items were selected based on correlations with ratings of creativity given to students by experts across a variety of different domains. The scale has demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency across different samples (lowest; α =
32
.73, highest; α = .81) and convergent validity with other measures of creative personality (Gough, 1979).
Measurement of criterion variables/covariates
NEO-Five Factor Inventory
The personality dimensions of extraversion, openness and neuroticism have previously been shown to be associated with creativity and divergent thinking (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005; Feist, 1998; Martindale & Dailey, 1996; Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008). Measures of personality were recorded in the present study for two reasons. Firstly, in order to provide covariates to reduce noise in the data so as increasing the power of inferential statistical tests performed to detect significant effects within the sample. Secondly, openness and extraversion scores were used as criterion variables on which to assess the validity of the inverse remote associate problems as a measure of divergent thinking. The NEO-FFI provides a brief but comprehensive assessment of the five domains of personality, consisting of five 12 item scales measuring each domain; namely neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Costa & Macrae, 1992). Correlations with the established full-scale measure of the five domains of personality, the NEO-PI-R are within acceptable limits (r= .92, .90, .91, .77 and .87 for N, E, O, A and C respectively) as are the coefficients for internal consistency (α = .86, .77, .73, .68, .81 for N, E, O, A and C respectively).
Weschsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI)
The intelligence of the present sample was measured in order to provide a measure on which to validate the remote associate problems as a measure of convergent thinking. IQ tests appear to be good candidate measures on which to validate measures of convergent thinking as they appear to measure convergent thinking abilities (Guilford, 1959 cited in Clark, Veldman & Thorpe, 1965). The two-subtest form of the WASI was used to provide a brief measure of an individual’s intelligence (Wechsler, 1999). The two-subtest form comprises the vocabulary and matrix reasoning subtests, with the latter test always administered following the former. The two-subtest form sacrifices some degree of accuracy for speed of administration but was chosen based on its short administration time of 15 minutes which
33
allowed additional measures to be included in the second session of the study within a limited period of time. It has also been standardised on a nationally representative sample (Wechsler, 1999). Use of the two-subtest form only permits the measurement of full-scale IQ (Wechsler, 1999).
Verbal fluency task
Verbal fluency was measured in order to control for participants’ ability to fluently generate