Abstract
Augmenting creative performance has the potential to benefit both the individual and our society. Several studies have evaluated the impact of different behavioral training or induction methods on creativity. However, the findings are mixed and sometimes contradictory. Four different short-term induction methods which differed along two information processing dimensions—modality and demand—were compared within a single experimental paradigm alongside a non-induction control group to determine which was the most effective at improving creativity. A comparison on the experimental inductions revealed that low-demand induction methods boosted creativity more than high-demand induction methods. However, this pattern was not maintained when comparisons included the non-induction control. These findings provide insights on important factors and control variables that need to be taken into account at the level of experimental design in order to be able to evaluate the efficacy of different induction and training methods on creativity.
Highlights
Several studies have examined whether creativity can be improved by means of assorted behavioral training or induction methods, which differ along parameters such as modality type (Oppezzo and Schwartz 2014; Radel et al 2015) and context (Dugosh et al 2000; Dumas and Dunbar 2016)
In one episodic specificity induction protocol (Madore et al 2015) participants view a ~2-min video of people engaged in household activities
Nine participants were omitted from the analysis as they did not meet either the eligibility or inclusion criteria: over 30 years of age (n = 3); lefthanded (n = 1); failure to understand motor–high-demand training instructions (n = 1); high error rate of over 20% in cognitive induction tasks (n = 2); incomplete performance on the standard progressive matrices (SPM) (n = 1); and an SPM score that translated to an IQ below 85 (n = 1)
Summary
Several studies have examined whether creativity can be improved by means of assorted behavioral training or induction methods, which differ along parameters such as modality type (cognitive, motor) (Oppezzo and Schwartz 2014; Radel et al 2015) and context (active task, passive exposure) (Dugosh et al 2000; Dumas and Dunbar 2016). The participants are presented mental imagery probes to report details concerning the events in the viewed video with as much specificity as possible Such episodic inductions are believed to enable wider and deeper access to representations and this retrieval of detailed information is held to abet creative performance (Dugosh et al 2000; Madore et al 2015). These are distinct from domain-specific methods, such as enhancing verbal creativity by training specific verbal skills (Fink et al 2010, 2015) (e.g., make slogans for a new product: orange ice cream)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
