Big Data and Creativity Kill or Cure Creative Review

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Fostering students' creative thinking skills by ways of a ane-twelvemonth creativity training program

• Simone 1000. Ritter,
• Xiaojing Gu,
• Maurice Crijns,
• Peter Biekens

x

• Published: March 20, 2020
• https://doi.org/ten.1371/periodical.pone.0229773

Figures

Abstract

Creative thinking is among the most sought-afterwards life and work skills in the 21^st century. The demand for creativity, however, exceeds the caste to which information technology is available and adult. The current project aimed to exam the effectiveness of a one-yr creativity training program for college education. The creativity of students post-obit the grooming was measured before, halfway, and after the training. In addition to the within-subjects comparing across fourth dimension, performance was compared to a matched control group. At each of the measurement points, different versions of vii well-validated inventiveness tasks (capturing divergent and convergent artistic thinking skills) were employed. The inventiveness preparation increased students' ideation skills and, more chiefly their cerebral flexibility. However, no difference in originality was observed. Finally, an increase in performance was observed for 1 of the convergent creativity tasks, the Remote Associate Exam. Implications for educational settings and directions for future research are discussed.

Citation: Ritter SM, Gu X, Crijns 1000, Biekens P (2020) Fostering students' creative thinking skills past ways of a ane-year inventiveness grooming programme. PLoS ONE xv(three): e0229773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229773

Editor: Dongtao Wei, Southwest University, CHINA

Received: June 27, 2019; Accepted: February 14, 2020; Published: March 20, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Ritter et al. This is an open access commodity distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted apply, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are bachelor from the Radboud University repository at https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-zuz-q6zd.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this piece of work.

Competing interests: The authors have alleged that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

From the start bike to the latest microprocessor creativity has continuously enriched our lives. Information technology plays a vital role in science, innovation, and the arts [ane–3]. Moreover, the significance of creativity has also been recognized in daily life problem solving [iv], in maintaining and fostering our well-existence [5], and in successful adaptation to change [4, half-dozen]. Creativity—the ability to generate original and useful ideas [7–9]—drives us forrad, and it is among the almost sought-afterwards life and work skills in our complex, fast-changing earth.

We take moved from an Industrial Age, to a Cognition Age, to an Innovation Age. Many jobs are disappearing, and new jobs are emerging, for example, due to the transformative impact of digital technologies. On average our future generation of employees will change jobs more than than ten times before they achieve the age of 50 [x]. As we don't know how the future work field will look like, it is difficult to predict for what kind of jobs nosotros have to prepare our electric current generation pupils and students. Whereas for decades content knowledge was a prerequisite for work, in the era of google nosotros need individuals who are capable to creatively employ and generate knowledge. To remain competitive, nations, organizations and individuals have to be able to recall differently and to make connections between seemingly unrelated things. Global surveys have revealed that organizational leaders are mostly satisfied with their employees' content knowledge or technical skills [11]. Even so, what they complain about is the lack of creativity in many otherwise qualified graduates [11]. For instance, equally reported by a UK employment survey, information technology graduates fail to grasp job opportunities due to a lack of creativity [12]. Inventiveness is not anymore, a 'nice to have', only has turned into a 'must have'. Interestingly, the majority of employees indicate that they wish they had more creative power (75%), and that they lacked exposure to creative thinking during their education (82%; [xiii]). Supporting these findings, recruiters denoted that creative thinking is a skill that is hard to notice in chore applicants [fourteen]. All in all, the demand for inventiveness exceeds the degree to which it is available at all levels of the organisation. To meet the needs of the 21st century, academics, concern leaders, and policy makers around the world take stressed that creativity should be fostered in the entire population [15].

Evolution has equipped us with a creative listen. However, we often do not employ our creative thinking skills to the best of our ability. Some scholars even country that the educational system diminishes our inventiveness. In the most watched TED talk of all time, educationalist Ken Robinson claims that schools kill creativity—schools do not foster growing into but out of creativity. This is a rather radical view, as schools cultivate the knowledge on which creativity often depends. In schools, children develop the literacy skills necessary for all further learning. Creativity does not happen in a vacuum, it is based on knowledge. Nevertheless, what schools more often than not don't focus on is teaching and practicing how existing noesis can be used to come up with creative ideas and problem solutions. In schools that focus on creativity, information technology is oftentimes observed that creativity development is embedded in arts subjects, but not in subjects such as writing and mathematics [sixteen]. Cotter, Pretz and Kaufman [17] studied the relationship between academy applicants' creativity, extracurricular interest and traditional admission criteria (east.g., SAT scores, high school rank). The results revealed that applicants' extracurricular activities positively predicted their inventiveness, whereas their academic performance or the traditional admission criteria fifty-fifty showed a negative human relationship with creativity.

Inventiveness is a mental miracle that results from the application of ordinary cerebral processes such equally working memory, and the ability to categorize and dispense objects (creative cognition approach; [18, 19]). Chiefly, the ability to recall creatively tin can exist taught and developed—creativity is not a stock-still inborn trait [20–23]. However, this is often not what is happening in teaching. While the earth has gone through revolutionary changes, teaching practices have non changed much. The main focus in teaching is yet on rote learning. In classroom activities as well equally in the curricula, trivial attending is paid on introducing and practicing cognitive strategies proven to foster artistic thinking skills.

By now, a diversity of reports stress that creative thinking is a crucial 21^st century skill [24–26], and a skill that should exist fostered in schools [nine, 27]. Schools permit not just the training of a creative elite, but of our entire futurity generation. To illustrate, simply the way a question is asked tin either stimulate or undermine creative thinking: Example 'What is three plus three?' requires convergent thinking (i.eastward., finding the single, correct respond). Withal, if the teacher instead asks 'Which calculation volition result in six', divergent thinking is stimulated—afterward all, the answer could be iii plus three, 2 plus four, or twelve divided by 2, and infinitely many others. Instead of focusing on calculations, the teacher could also ask a broader question: 'What is half dozen?' The answer might exist a triangular pyramid, the sixth sense, or an ice crystal. To boost creativity further, the teacher may ask 'What can you do with six?' Next twenty-four hour period, she asks for answers. A dreamer or gifted visionary may answer: I see an array of hexagons, which you tin use to build spaces. This instance demonstrates that creativity is a skill that can be taught and adult within different academic domains and school subjects [28]. We can recall of the brain as a muscle. To run a couple of kilometres, people must practice. By exercising regularly, our muscles and condition become stiff enough to run a longer altitude. It is no different for the brain. Regular exercise is required to develop a creative thinking way and to keep our encephalon in shape. A potentially helpful framework for fostering inventiveness in educational settings is the 4 P's model of inventiveness: how to promote the cognitive processes that lead to inventiveness (Process), how to recognize and support creative individuals (Person), how the schoolhouse/classroom environment impacts creativity (Press), and how to recognize and evaluate creativity in students' piece of work (Product).

The current project

During contempo years notable efforts take been made to empower creativity in didactics [29–31]. However, empirical evidence on the effectiveness of creativity intervention programs is frequently defective. Every bit concluded past Davies and colleagues [32] in their review newspaper, "Much literature in this surface area tends to be either philosophical, anecdotal or polemical, which has led to a strong conventionalities about the effectiveness but significant evidence gaps" (p.89). To fill this gap, the electric current report aimed to develop and scientifically test the effectiveness of a inventiveness grooming program. The main objective of the electric current project was to scientifically examination the effectiveness of a recently developed one-year creativity preparation program for higher instruction, chosen the 'Brainnovation Vi Stride Cycle of Inventiveness'. The training had to fulfil several requirements: Showtime, it has to be suitable for students with various educational backgrounds (i.e., it has to be domain unspecific). Second, information technology applies a cognitive approach, as previous research has shown that cerebral-oriented preparation programs have larger furnishings [20]. Third, it has to combine scientific insight and practical experience. Brainnovation is based on linking practical experience and anecdotal show (e.k., sleeping on a trouble, distraction, connecting seemingly unrelated things) with existing models of the creative process (e.g., preparation, incubation, illumination and verification [33]) and with brain science (east.g., the finding that creative thinking is related to the interaction of 3 major brain networks; the central executive network, salience network and the default manner network [34–36]. The core of the Brainnovation method is the 'Six Stride Wheel of Inventiveness'. The first iii steps explore the resources of the central executive network, and the last iii steps explore those of the default mode network. A ready of assignments trains the fluent application of all 6 steps. The idea is that past following the training, the educatee can employ the 6 Footstep Cycle of Creativity to problems that need a creative solution. Four tools are employed to facilitate walking through and practicing the Six Step Cycle. The Half dozen Step Cycle and the four tools are described in more than detail in the Method section of the current paper. Quaternary, rigorous scientific testing of the effectiveness of the preparation has to be performed: The inventiveness of students following the creativity training was measured before the grooming, halfway the grooming, and after the training. In improver to the within-subjects comparison across time, the creativity of students following the training was compared to a matched control group. At each of the 3 measurement points, seven well-validated inventiveness tasks were employed to exam participants' divergent thinking, convergent thinking and creative trouble solving ability. The inventiveness measurement tasks are described in more than detail in the Method section of the current newspaper.

We formulated the post-obit hypotheses:

1. There will exist a significant comeback in students' creative thinking skills from pre-measure out to half-manner and post-measure in the preparation group. For exploratory reasons, we will besides compare creative operation in the inventiveness preparation group between the one-half-way measure and the post-mensurate, as this gives an indication whether the time elapsing of the training has a positive effect on students' creativity development.
2. In the command group no difference in artistic operation is observed across the iii measurement times.
3. The grooming group significantly differs in creative performance from the control group on the half-fashion measure and on the post-measure.

Method

Participants

The current study was conducted from September 2017 to May 2018 at an practical university in kingdom of the netherlands. The written report was pre-registered on open up science framework (see https://osf.io/znw5h/register/5730e99a9ad5a102c5745a8a). An a priori power assay using G* power [37] was calculated. To achieve a statistical power of .80, 215 students should be recruited for the written report. The total participant number is slightly lower (198 instead of 215), every bit less than expected freshmen students enrolled in the programme in the written report year 2017/eighteen. From the 198 students, 133 students followed the creativity grooming, a 5 ECTS (i.e., 140 hours) grade entitled 'Applied Creativity'. Another 65 students, who were not enrolled in the course, formed the command grouping. The training and the command group are comparable in terms of educational level (all freshmen) and educational background (Business related study). As preregistered, participants who did not regularly (less than 2/3 of all lessons) attend the creativity training program were excluded from data analyses. From the 78 participants who met this criterion, 57 were in the creativity training group, and 21 in the command group. 27 of the 78 participants were female and l were male, and the average age was 19.72 (SD = one.82), ranging from 18 to 26 years. The study was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declarations of Helsinki. The enquiry was not of a medical nature, no minors or persons with disability were involved, and at that place were no potential risks to the participants; therefore, ethical approval was, when data collection started, not required by the Institution'due south guidelines and national regulations. Importantly a lecturer prior to the written report assigned each participant a bailiwick identification lawmaking that was used in the current written report. This code was not shared with the researchers, to make certain that personal data is staying within the educational institution.

Procedure

The study employed a pre-post-exam between-subject design. Participants were either in the inventiveness grooming group or in the control group. Participants' artistic thinking skills were assessed at three time points: at the outset of the training plan (pre-mensurate; start of the academic year, September 2017), later on three months of the training (one-half-way mensurate; December 2017), and at the cease of the training program (post-measure; May 2018). At each testing session, participants' artistic performance was measured by means of 7 well-validated and frequently used inventiveness tasks (for tasks and task description, see the creativity measurement section).

Creativity grooming

The creativity training program is provided as a mandatory course that counts for 5 ECTS credits. According to Dutch police force, 1 credit represents 28 hours of work, and lx credits represents ane year of full-fourth dimension study. The creativity course (in full 140 hours) lasted 2 semesters, and the course entailed lectures (i.e., focus on theory) and factory lessons (i.e., focuses on do exercises in the field of international business concern).

In the creativity training program, students learned to utilize the Six Step Cycle of Inventiveness to a wide range of issues. The 6 steps—understanding the question, convergent thinking, divergent thinking, detached thinking, stop thinking, and sleeping—are described in more item below.

Understand the question. The problem must be defined correctly; failing to do and then interferes with the other steps of the creative cycle [38]. This pace requires a high focus. Convergent thinking. Convergent thinking is logic reasoning, straightforward thinking from A to B. People in general are quite skilful in convergent thinking, as schools put heavy focus on convergent thinking. Divergent thinking. Divergent thinking is associating freely without criticizing ideas or thoughts: I tries to consider different kinds of alternatives. To illustrate these steps with an instance: The question 'What is three plus iii?' elicits convergent thinking—there is one single correct answer, six; whereas the question 'What is six?' stimulates divergent thinking, it could exist three plus three, nine minus three, and infinitely many other options. Detached thinking. In this phase, one tries to look at a problem with defocused attention [39] and without emotions or personal concern [40]. One can observe a problem, object, or prototype from all sides, upside downward, turn it effectually, and toss and touch information technology. Central in this stage is a playful mood or a meditative mind fix [41]. When answering the question 'What is six?' with detached thinking, the answer might be a triangular pyramid, a dice, an ice crystal, a hexagon, and then on. Terminate thinking. If convergent, divergent and detached thinking did non provide a solution, a possible avenue may be to stop thinking about the problem. Let the problem 'become' for a while, create an incubation period [42, 43], for case, become shopping, go for a run, watch TV, trip the light fantastic toe, bike, bath, shower, drive, or listen to music [44]. Without conscious awareness, the unconscious is working difficult [45] to re-assemble the information obtained in the previous steps of the bike in new networks. Of a sudden, an idea may pop-up, and experience that is described as an Euraka moment—often experienced at times when people look it the least [46]. In terms of our case, the question 'What is six?', stop thinking may result in abstract, remote associations and the answer may be the Six Thinking Hats, or the sixth sense. Sleeping. A very powerful pace of the wheel is sleeping on it. Inquiry has shown a positive relationship between creativity and sleep [47, 48]. This step starts with deliberatively re-activating the trouble just before going to sleep; this gives guidance to the unconscious where to focus on during sleep. It has, for instance, been shown so even in rats [49] during sleep the unconscious starts to replay many scenarios to discover a solution to a given problem [fifty, 51]. During slumber, the brain takes into account different kind of scenarios. An important advantage of the unconscious mind is that it is not hindered by social conventions or prejudices, and in that setting, mood and other variables are irresolute at an incredible speed, thereby allowing a diverseness of pick to be explored. This process may take one or more than nights, and somewhen it may lead to a creative thought. It may exist helpful to put a notebook next to the bed. In case one wakes up in the night with a hunch, one must write it down, as people often exercise not retrieve their dreams and solutions the adjacent morning [52]. For example, sleeping on the question 'What is six?', an architect may dream of floating images of hexagons, which in the example of Li Hu of the Beijing-based Open Architecture office, resulted in the pattern of the HEX-SYS—a reconfigurable construction arrangement of hexagons in response to the proliferation of temporary structures erected by property developers during China's recent construction boom.

Iv tools are provided to facilitate walking through the Six Step Cycle: simplify (i.east., reduce the complexity of questions), differentiate (i.e., wonder what is more and less important; what is the large moving-picture show what are details), visualize (i.e., use existent objects, make sketches, or imagine comparable processes from everyday life) and tag the trouble (i.e., link the problem to one of the five senses: sight, smell, sound, taste, touch). Students are repeatedly provided with four dissimilar types of assignments, which trigger them to practice the different steps of the Six Step Cycle: The Detox assignments are provided at the starting time of the form, and they aim to train the flexibility of the mind by questioning prejudices and past fostering an open mind. The Training assignments focus on the outset three steps of the Six Pace Cycle, which train students' cognitive creativity and their power to rapidly form remote associations. The Jump assignments are circuitous problems that are non like shooting fish in a barrel to solve, and they claiming the students to utilise and practice footstep iv to six of the Six Pace Cycle. Whereas the Grooming assignments must be solved within a short amount of time, for the Leap assignments students take ane week, allowing unconscious processes to come into play. Often the Half-dozen Footstep Cycle must be repeated to find a solution. In add-on to the 3 assignments, students practice with neural headsets. Ii types of headset are used: the Mindwave and the Mindflex. The neural headsets visualize the brainwaves of a student in existent time and so, the student tin monitor the level of attention or relaxation. By playing with the headsets, the students are challenged to smoothly rotate between a country of focused and defocused attention—a process that is vital for creativity and a skill that can be learned [53].

Each of the training sessions starts with a warming-upwards: A short video clip that is non aimed at developing creativity, but at making students wonder. The warming-up prepares the mind for the theory and training provided.

Creativity measures

Vii inventiveness tasks were employed to measure out students' divergent thinking, convergent thinking and creative problem solving skills. Creative operation was measured at iii time points (pre-measure, half-way measure, post-measure) and, therefore, iii versions of each task (except the number job) were used. The task versions were counterbalanced across participants and time points. Importantly, the creativity measures differed from the trained exercises.

Divergent thinking.

Culling Uses Chore (AUT). The AUT requires participants to retrieve of equally many uses of an object as possible [54]. Participants were asked to think of as many unlike uses for a brick (newspaper, paperclip; depending on the job version) inside iii min. Afterwards information collection, four trained raters screened the generated ideas and eliminated incomplete or unclear ideas.

The post-obit creativity indices were used to measure out the participants' performance on the AUT: (a) Fluency, the total number of ideas. (b) Flexibility, the total number of dissimilar categories that a participant'due south ideas could exist assigned to. Therefore, a pre-defined list of categories was developed based on the ideas generated by all participants. (c) Originality, the originality level of an idea. (d) Inventiveness, the creativity level of an thought. (e) Usefulness, the usefulness level of an idea. Two raters scored Originality, Creativity and Usefulness, using a 5-betoken calibration (ranging from 1 "not at all [dimension]" to 5 "very [dimension]"). The two raters showtime assigned scores to a random sample of 30% of participants' ideas, based on which the raters' reliability (ii-way random, consistency) was calculated. The results showed proficient intraclass coefficients (ICC) for Originality (.893), Creativity (.898), and Usefulness (.822). Future, the ii raters worked independently—each rater assigned scores to fifty% of the remaining ideas. For each participant, a hateful score of Originality, Creativity or Usefulness was calculated across all his/her ideas.

Visual imagination chore. Participants were presented with a picture of randomly combined shapes, and they were asked to think of every bit many ideas as possible of what the randomly combined shapes could represent inside 3 min. Participants' performance was measured using three indices: Fluency, Flexibility and Originality. For a detailed description of these indices, see AUT above. The intraclass coefficient (ICC) for Originality was good (.811).

Convergent thinking.

Remote Associates Exam (RAT). In the RAT, a task originally developed by Mednick [55], participants were presented with six sets of three cue words, and they were asked to recollect of a fourth word that associates with each of the three given words. For example, for the iii-word set "bar, dress, drinking glass", the solution word is 'cocktail' (cocktail bar, cocktail apparel, cocktail drinking glass). Participants had 3 min to come with answers, and an overall RAT performance was calculated (i.eastward., number of right solutions).

Convergent visual imagination chore. This task required participants to rearrange a set of coins (e.k., arranged in a triangle) into a new shape with limited moves. Participants' performance was measured by whether they solved (score of ane) or did not solve (score of 0) the task within the given fourth dimension of 3 min.

Idea selection task. In the idea selection job, participants had to rank guild iii pictures of business organisation ideas from nigh creative to least creative within 4 min. These business organization ideas had been evaluated beforehand on creativity by ix inventiveness experts. For each participant, a final creativity score was calculated using a weighted score: three* pinnacle-1 idea (ranked as the most creative) + 2* top-2 idea (ranked every bit the second creative) + 1* superlative-three idea (ranked as the third artistic).

Creative trouble solving.

Insight problems. In the electric current study, insight problems were used to measure participants' creative trouble solving ability. 3 dissimilar insight problems were used, and one is illustrated in more detail here, the 2-string problem. Participants were confronted with the following situation: 2 strings are hanging from the ceiling, and they are farther away from each other than an arm's length. The question is how to hold the 2 strings at the same time. The solution is to first set one string in movement (i.e., like a pendulum), and so concord the other one, and grab the swinging string. Participants' functioning was measured by whether they solved (score of 1) or did not solve (score of 0) the insight trouble within the given fourth dimension of 4 min.

Number job. In this task, participants were presented with a pic of a parking lot. The number of one parking space was invisible due to a parked auto. The task is to figure out the number of the parking space. I tin only solve the chore if ane turns the film upwardly-side downward. This task had i version, and to measure incubation furnishings information technology was measured on all iii measurement times (pre-mensurate, half-way measure out and post-measure). Participants' performance was measured by whether they solved (score of 1) or did not solve (score of 0) the task within the time limit of 2 min. If a participant already solved the number chore at the pre-mensurate, his/her performance was non included in the analyses of subsequent measurement points.

Demographics

Students' age, gender, and educational background were investigated at the pre-measure.

Results

Divergent thinking

AUT.

To examine whether the creativity training improved participants' creative functioning, we performed mixed ANOVAs in which treatment (inventiveness training group, control grouping) served as the between-subjects factor and measurement fourth dimension (pre-measure, half-way measure, post-measure) as the within-subjects factor. Results are shown in Fig 1.

For Fluency, there was a pregnant interaction effect betwixt training and measurement time, F(ii,152) = 7.62, p = .001, η_p ² = .092 (according to Cohen [56], η_p ² = 0.01 refers to small upshot, η_p ^two = 0.06 refers to medium effect, η_p ² = 0.xiv refers to big consequence). A significant master effect was found for preparation, F(one,76) = 48.52, p < .001, η_p ² = .393, and for measurement time, F(2,152) = 16.0, p = .006, η_p ^two = .095. Simple main furnishings (bonferroni corrected) revealed that in the training grouping participants' creative performance at the pre-measure (M = 5.88, SD = 2.36) significantly differed from the one-half-manner measure (Chiliad = 9.63, SD = 3.48, p < .001) and the post-measure (M = ten.95, SD = 4.49, p < .001), while there was no significant difference betwixt the half-way measure and the post-measure (p = .141). Participants generated significantly more ideas after having followed the grooming, and this effect was already found after a couple of training sessions (half-way measure),and did not further increment with duration of the training (post-measure). Importantly, the command group showed no significant modify from pre-measure (M = iv.43, SD = one.83) to half-manner measure out (Chiliad = 5.48, SD = 2.86, p = .581) and mail-measure (Grand = five.24, SD = two.14, p = i.00), and also not from half-way measure to post-measure out (p = 1.00).

For Flexibility, a significant interaction upshot was found between treatment and time, F(2, 152) = vii.04, p = .001, η_p ² = .086. A significant chief issue was establish for treatment, F(1,76) = 49.three, p < .001, η_p ⁱⁱ = .397, and for measurement time, F(2,152) = 14.iv, p < .001, η_p ² = .161. An analysis of simple event (bonferroni corrected) showed that the training group showed a meaning improvement from the pre-measure (M = 5.07, SD = ane.98) to the half-style measure (One thousand = 7.75, SD = ii.62, p < .001) and the post-measure (G = viii.52, SD = 3.02, p < .001). For the grooming group, participants improved significantly from pre-measure to half-way measure in generating ideas from unlike categories, but the improvement between one-half-way mensurate and post-measure was non-significant (p = .298). For the control group, at that place was no meaning change neither from the pre-measure (M = 3.86, SD = 1.80) to the half-manner measure (M = 4.52, SD = 2.11, p = .083) and the post-measure (M = four.38, SD = 2.60, p = one.00), nor from the half-way measure out to the postal service-measure (p = 1.00).

For Originality, results yielded no significant interaction effect of treatment and time, F(2,152) = 0.023, p = .977, η_p ² = .000. The main outcome of measurement time was not significant, F(2,152) = 0.828, p = .439, η_p ² = .011; but a significant principal effect of handling was revealed, F(i,76) = ix.49, p = .003, η_p ⁱⁱ = .112; a difference between the preparation and control grouping was found regardless of measurement fourth dimension.

For Creativity, the interaction effect between treatment and time was not-significant, F(2,152) = 0.235, p = .772, η_p ⁱⁱ = .003. There was a meaning main effect of grooming, F(one,76) = vii.86, p = .006, η_p ⁱⁱ = .095, but the master outcome of measurement fourth dimension was non-significant, F(2,152) = 0.746, p = .476, η_p ⁱⁱ = .010. The training and control group differed on creativity, but as shown in Fig 1, performance of the training group was higher on all the 3 measurement times as compared to the command grouping.

For Usefulness, there was a significant interaction effect betwixt treatment and fourth dimension, F(2, 152) = 3.87, p = .026, η_p ^two = .049. A significant main outcome was found for training, F(1,76) = 8.85, p = .004, η_p ² = .106, and for measurement fourth dimension, F(two,152) = six.17, p = .003, η_p ² = .076. Interestingly, further analyses showed that performance of the preparation group decreased significantly from pre-measure (1000 = 3.85, SD = 0.632) to half-style measure (One thousand = three.46, SD = 0.810, p = .020) and post-measure (Chiliad = three.16, SD = 0.526, p < .001), and from half-manner measure out to post-measure (p = .042). Though in that location was a decrease tendency in the training group, the average score of usefulness was still higher than the medium level (> 3). The control group showed no significant change from pre-measure (M = three.76, SD = 0.873) to one-half-way measure (M = 3.94, SD = 0.582, p = i.00) and post-measure (M = 3.65, SD = 0.370, p = one.00), and non from half-style measure to post-measure (p = .377).

Visual imagination task.

As in AUT, the grooming upshot was analysed past means of a mixed ANOVA with treatment (creativity training group, control grouping) as the betwixt-subject variable and measurement time as the within-subjects variable.

For Fluency, the mixed ANOVA showed a significant interaction consequence betwixt treatment and time, F(two, 152) = 28.8, p < .001, η_p ^two = .275. A pregnant main outcome was plant for grooming, F(ane,76) = 45.3, p < .001, η_p ^two = .373, and for measurement time, F(2,152) = 35.i, p < .001, η_p ⁱⁱ = .316 (Fig 2). Unproblematic primary effect analyses using bonferroni correction indicated that in the creativity training grouping participants generated significantly more ideas at the half-way mensurate (M = 9.05, SD = three.xv, p < .001) and the postal service-measure out (M = 9.37, SD = 3.83, p < .001) than at the pre-measure (M = iv.26, SD = 1.76), whereas no pregnant training effect was observed from the half-style measure to the post-measure (p = 1.00). For the command group, no meaning change was observed from the pre-measure (Grand = 3.76, SD = 1.fourteen) to the half-way measure (K = 3.62, SD = i.28, p = 1.00) and the mail service-mensurate (M = iv.33, SD = i.28, p = 1.00), and also non from the half-manner measure to the post-measure (p = .755).

For Flexibility, a significance interaction effect was observed between treatment and measurement fourth dimension, F(two, 152) = 21.4, p < .001, η_p ⁱⁱ = .219. There was a significant principal consequence of training, F(1,76) = 39.three, p < .001, η_p ^two = .341, and of measurement time, F(2, 152) = 29.viii, p < .001, η_p ² = .282. The grooming significantly increased participants' performance from the pre-mensurate (M = 3.89, SD = 1.59) to the one-half-mode measure (M = 7.44, SD = ii.59, p < .001) and the post-measure out (One thousand = 7.xx, SD = ii.57, p < .001); no difference was found betwixt the half-way measure and the post-measure (p = 1.00). For the control group, no significant difference was found between the pre-measure (M = three.48, SD = one.21) and the one-half-way measure (Yard = 3.38, SD = one.28, p = 1.00) and the post-mensurate (M = 4.19, SD = 1.33, p = .495); moreover, no deviation was found between the half-way mensurate and the post-measure (p = .333).

For Originality, the interaction outcome of treatment and measurement time was non significant, F(ii, 152) = 0.306, p = .737, η_p ² = .004, indicating that the preparation didn't lead to an increase in the originality of the ideas generated.

Convergent thinking

RAT.

Using a mixed ANOVA, there was a significant interaction upshot between handling and measurement time, F(two, 152) = 3.55, p = .031, η_p ² = .045. Moreover, results indicated a meaning main outcome of grooming, F(1, 76) = 9.05, p = .004, η_p ² = .106; the main effect of measurement time was not-significant, F(ii, 152) = 0.561, p = .572, η_p ² = .007. For the preparation group, a simple main upshot analysis (bonferroni corrected) revealed that the performance of the grooming group on the pre-mensurate (Grand = 1.86, SD = 1.37) differed significantly from the half-way measure (Thou = 2.75, SD = 1.46, p = .001) and the mail-measure out (Thousand = 2.61, SD = one.76, p = .023). Even so, there was no significant difference between the half-way mensurate and the mail service-measure (p = ane.00) in the grooming group. For the command group, participants' performance on the pre-measure (M = 1.90, SD = 1.38) did non differ from the half-way measure (G = i.52, SD = 1.44, p = ane.00) and the mail service-measure (M = one.57, SD = i.57, p = 1.00), and no difference was found betwixt the half-mode measure out and the post-measure (p = 1.00) (Fig 3).

Convergent visual imagination job.

Earlier data analyses, participants' familiarity with the tasks were checked. On the pre-measure, 75 participants reported "unfamiliar" with the task; on the half-fashion measure, 67 participants were unfamiliar with the chore; on the mail service-mensurate, there were 64 participants who reported "unfamiliar" with the task (see Table 1). For each measure, only participants who were unfamiliar with the tasks were included in the data analyses.

Given that there were some cells with expected value < v, Fisher'south exact tests were performed to determine whether there were whatever differences between and within groups. Results indicated that at that place was no meaning difference between the training and command group on the pre-measure, p = .124, the one-half-way measure, p = .432 and the post-mensurate, p = .268. For the preparation group, there was a significant improvement from the pre-measure to the one-half-manner measure, p = .020; no divergence was observed between the pre-measure and the post-measure out, and the half-way mensurate and the post-measure, p = 1.00, p = .328, respectively. For the control group, no difference was found betwixt the pre-measure and the half-way mensurate, and the pre-measure and the post-measure, p = .600, p = .608, respectively; the control grouping demonstrated a marginally significant improvement from the half-way measure to the post-measure out, p = .050.

Idea choice task.

Some participants did not complete this job; the performance of 64 participants could be analysed on the selection task. Mixed ANOVAs revealed that in that location was no interaction result between treatment and measurement fourth dimension, F(2, 124) = 0.517, p = .597, η_p ² = .003. The chief effect of training, F(1, 62) = 1.74, p = .192, η_p ^two = .033, and measurement time, F(2, 124) = 1.06, p = .348, η_p ² = .004, were not significant.

Artistic problem solving

Insight problems.

Before information analyses, participants' familiarity with the insight problems were checked. At pre-measure, 63 participants reported that they were unfamiliar with the problems; at half-way measure, 69 participants reported "unfamiliar"; and at post-measure out, 70 participants reported "unfamiliar" (come across Table 2). At each measure out, only participants who were unfamiliar with the insight problems were included in the data analyses.

Given that in that location were some cells with expected value < 5, Fisher'due south exact tests were performed to decide whether there were any differences betwixt and within groups. We start compared the difference between the training and control grouping at each measurement fourth dimension. On the pre-measure, Fisher's exact test yielded a non-pregnant result, p = .662, indicating that in that location was no departure between the two groups prior to the training. On the half-manner mensurate, the results were non-meaning, p = .499. On the mail service-measure, the training group performed significantly better than the control group, p = .017. Nosotros also compared the difference within groups at each measurement fourth dimension. For the training grouping, the difference between the pre-measure and one-half-manner measure couldn't exist computed considering the pre-mensurate data was a constant; there was no difference between the pre-measure out and the mail service-measure, p = ane.00, and betwixt one-half-way measure and post-measure, p = .273. For the command group, Fisher's exact test couldn't be computed considering the half-fashion measure data was a abiding.

Number task.

On the pre-measure, Fisher's exact tests revealed no deviation between the training and the control group, p = .127. Considering we aimed to examine whether participants could come up with the solution after an incubation period, we also administered the same chore on the half-mode mensurate and the post-measure. Only those participants who failed to solve the task on the pre-measure out, that is, 45 participants, were included for farther data analyses. Using Fisher'south exact test, their performance on the half-way measure out and the post-measure were examined between groups. Results showed no significant difference between the training and control group on the half-style measure, p = .695, and on the mail service-measure out, p = .190 (meet Table 3 beneath).

Discussion

Inventiveness is important for innovation [57], everyday problem solving [58], and emotional wellness and wellbeing [57, 59]. Information technology has been recognized that the demand for people who are able to recall creatively exceeds the degree to which creativity is available. Academics, business leaders, and policy makers around the world have stressed that creativity should be developed throughout the entire population [15]. Although creativity can be fostered [xx], in most educational settings little attention is paid on developing students' creative thinking skills. There is a stiff need for well-adult, domain-unspecific, scientifically tested creativity trainings that tin be easily implemented in educational settings.

The principal goal of the electric current research was to establish whether a inventiveness-training designed to come across these requirements enhances students' artistic thinking skills. After having followed the creativity-training course provided in the current study, improvements in creativity were observed. On both divergent thinking measures (the verbal AUT, and the visual VIT) students generated significantly more ideas. This effect was already found subsequently iii months of training (i.eastward., on the half-way measure), and did not farther increase with duration of preparation (i.due east., on the post-measure). Importantly, the command group showed no alter in the number of ideas generated during fourth dimension.

In add-on to looking at ideation skills, the current written report also allows to examine the quality of the ideas generated. As mentioned earlier, creative ideas accept to be both original and useful [ix, threescore, 61]. Thus, an idea without originality is merely a good but mundane solution to a trouble, whereas an idea without usefulness is considered weird. Oft organizations demand workable ideas—then, mundane ideas (i.due east., highly useful ideas) are fine. Still, in that location are situations in which individuals or organizations are explicitly looking for novel ideas—when conventional ideas don't work effectively, original ideas are of importance [62]. In the current written report, the usefulness of the ideas was always on a satisfactory level as, for all measurement moments, the usefulness was higher than three on a 5-bespeak scale. However, subsequently following the preparation, it seems like as students in the grooming condition focused less on the usefulness of the ideas, as a significant decrease was observed—both from the pre-measure to the half-fashion measure, and from the half-style measure to the post-measure. Research has shown that people tend to perceive an incompatibility between the originality and the usefulness of an idea [63, 64], and that virtually individuals focus on ideas that are consistent with social norms and turn down highly original ideas [65]. A decreased focus on usefulness tin can be considered a commencement pace towards focusing on the originality of an idea. In the current study, still, this does non translate into an observed increase in thought originality—the originality of the ideas did not increase, and no deviation in originality was establish between the ideas generated past participants in the training and the control condition.

Besides the meaning comeback in creative ideation (i.e., number of ideas generated), the cognitive-oriented grooming program also significantly enhanced participants' ability to diversify the categories of the ideas they generated (i.e., cerebral flexibility) [45, 48]. Indeed, in the grouping of students that followed the creativity-preparation course, the cognitive flexibility was evidenced by a meaning increase in the number of distinct thought categories generated half-way and post-training. There was no deviation in the training status between half-way and postal service-measure, suggesting that cognitive flexibility did not further increase with duration of the preparation. Chiefly, the increase in cerebral flexibility that was observed in the training group was not observed in the control grouping. The inventiveness training, thus, enhanced students' ability to break cognitive patterns and to overcome functional fixedness.

Every bit the beginning challenge in moving from creativity to innovation is to recognize whether the available ideas have creative potential, we also examined whether the grooming has a positive consequence on participants' ability to recognize creative ideas. In the idea selection task, participants had to rank order three business organization ideas from about to least creative. The preparation had no effect on participants' thought selection functioning. The preparation likewise did not substantially affect participants' performance on the convergent visual imagination task, the chore where they had to re-arrange coins. For the grooming group, a significant increment in performance was observed from pre-measure to half-way measure, only this difference was not present anymore on the post-measure. A possible caption for this inconsistent finding could be the mode the convergent visual imagination task was administered. No actual coins—which would allow playing with the coins to detect a solution—were provided due to practical considerations during the testing session. Instead, the convergent visual imagination task was handed out on paper, and participants had to describe the solution on paper. This slightly changed the essence of the task and, about importantly, formed a misfit with the creativity training program, in which students were used to play and experiment with existent objects, hereby making bug tangible as much as possible. Participants' convergent creativity was further examined by means of the RAT. Participants' number of correctly solved RAT word pairs prior to grooming was compared with that post-obit half-way and mail-measure training. Compared to the pre-measure, improved performance was observed half-way and mail service-measure in the inventiveness grooming condition, but not in the control condition. The deviation in the training condition between one-half-way and post-measure was not significant, suggesting that RAT operation did not further increment with elapsing of training.

With regard to creative problem solving skills, no difference was observed between the training and the control condition at the pre-mensurate, indicating equal creative problem solving skills between both groups at the commencement of the projection. However, at the mail-measure, a meaning difference in artistic problem solving skills was observed between the two groups; in the creativity training grouping a larger percentage of participants was able to solve the creative problem solving tasks equally compared to the control group. Though, when looking at the grooming grouping, no departure between pre-measure and post-measure was observed. This indicates that we have to be cautious in cartoon whatsoever firm conclusions with regard to creative problem solving skills.

Strengths and limitations

The current enquiry projection included a betwixt-subjects blueprint with three creativity measurement points: pre-, half- and post-measure. In addition, a control condition has been used. This makes it possible to dominion out any do or learning effects on the creative performance measures. Importantly, the training exercises differed from the tasks that were used to test the effectiveness of the preparation—participants were therefore not trained to the criterion [twenty]. This shows that the training succeeded in enabling a transfer of creative thinking skills, specifically ideation skills and cognitive flexibility. The enhanced creative thinking way, withal, did not interpret into the generation of more original ideas—the originality score of participants' ideas did non increase in the creativity training group, nor did the grooming group generate more artistic ideas than the command condition. This finding suggests that the creativity training should be further fine-tuned to optimally benefit students' creativity development.

Moreover, an important question for future research is to focus on the optimal duration of the inventiveness training. The current grooming was a ane-year creativity training, and students' creative performance was measured prior to, half-way, and after the training. Importantly, whereas a significant increase was observed on ideation skills and on cognitive flexibility from pre- to one-half-way measure out, no further increase was observed from half-style to post-measure out, suggesting that creative performance did non increase further with a longer duration of the preparation. A follow-up written report with addition measurement moments during the outset months of training can provide insight into the time that is needed to observe a training effect. This question is also interesting in the light of before studies showing a creativity grooming upshot after a 2.5 60 minutes of creativity training in both children and adults [21, 66].

In the current study, mainly Western adults participated. It is of import to examine the effectiveness of the current training among Eastern participants and among other age groups, for example, among children and the elderly. Moreover, the domain generality of the training could exist further examined. We assume that the grooming is applicable in diverse domains; in the current study, however, the issue of the training has been tested on standardized and well-validated inventiveness tasks, but not in unlike domains such equally science, arts, and production development. Moreover, the standardized and well-validated creativity tasks that were employed in the current study during the pre-, half-way and mail service-measure were of relatively curt nature, participants had a couple of minutes to solve the creativity task (eastward.m., 3 min for the AUT, and iii min for the RAT). Time taken to creatively solve a problem is an important component of the 6 Step Bicycle; specifically, during step 4, 5 and 6 time plays a vital part. For practical reasons, the creativity assessment did non include tasks that needed a longer time to be solved. In a follow up study it would be interesting to more extensively test whether students' ability to apply step 4, v and half dozen of the Six Stride Bicycle increased from the pre-measure to the half-way and mail-measure. Finally, no conclusions can exist drawn nearly the long-term effects of the training. In the current study iii measurement moments accept been employed, simply no follow-upwardly data are available. In hereafter research a follow-up measurement, for example 6 months after the training, could be administered to obtain information about potential long-term effects of the creativity training.

Decision

Future generations volition need to think creatively in order to thrive in our fast-changing globe. This brings attending to the need to foster creativity. Education plays a fundamental part in fostering inventiveness—non merely in elites, but in all learners. While the earth has undergone revolutionary changes, teaching practices have not changed much: learning continues to focus primarily on rote learning, instead of stimulating creativity. The current findings demonstrate the effectiveness of a one-twelvemonth training program in fostering creative thinking skills in applied university students. The current findings suggest that by spending some curriculum time on creativity development, nosotros can contribute to preparing learners for a apace changing earth later on graduation.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Marianne Pütz and Olga Boon for their help with data drove.

References

1. 1. Feist GJ, Gorman ME. The psychology of scientific discipline: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of general psychology. 1998;2(1):3.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Kaufman JC. Dissecting the golden goose: Components of studying artistic writers. Communication Research Journal. 2002;14(ane):27–40.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. MacKinnon DW. The nature and nurture of creative talent. American psychologist. 1962;17(7):484.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Cropley AJ. Creativity and mental wellness in everyday life. Creativity Research Journal. 1990;iii(3):167–78.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Hirt ER, Devers EE, McCrea SM. I desire to be creative: Exploring the office of hedonic contingency theory in the positive mood-cognitive flexibility link. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2008;94(2):214. pmid:18211173
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Reiter-Palmon R, Mumford MD, Threlfall KV. Solving everyday bug creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Periodical. 1998;11(three):187–97.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Amabile TM. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1983;45(2):357.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Mumford Dr.. Where accept we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity research journal. 2003;15(two–3):107–twenty.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity. 1999;1:iii–fifteen.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. x. The states. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Number of jobs, labor market experience, and earnings growth among Americans at 50: results from a longitudinal survey. 2017. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf
11. 11. Robinson J. Johannesburg's futures: beyond developmentalism and global success. In Emerging Johannesburg. 2014;275–296. Routledge.
12. 12. Bateman Yard. Information technology students miss out on roles due to lack of inventiveness. ComputerWeekly.com. April 18, 2013.
13. 13. Adobe Survey. Country of Create Study [Online]. 2012. http://world wide web.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pdfs/Adobe_State_of_Create_Global_Benchmark_Study.pdf.
14. 14. Otani A. These are the skills yous demand if you want to be headhunted. 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-05/the-chore-skills-that-recruiters-wish-you-had.
15. xv. Scholte FA. European manifesto: basic standards of healthcare for people with intellectual disabilities. Salud Pãblica De Mã©xico. 2008;50(ane):s273–6.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Wyse D, Ferrari A. Creativity and education: Comparison the national curricula of u.s. of the European union and the Great britain. British Educational Research Journal. 2015;41(1):30–47.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Cotter KN, Pretz JE, & Kaufman JC. Applicant extracurricular involvement predicts inventiveness better than traditional admissions factors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2016;ten(1): ii.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Ward TB, Finke RA, Smith SM. Creativity and the Heed. New York Plenum Press. 1995.
19. 19. Ward TB, Smith SM, Vaid J. Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 1997.
20. 20. Scott G, Leritz LE, Mumford MD. The effectiveness of creativity grooming: A quantitative review. Inventiveness Research Periodical. 2004(a);16(4):361–88.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Ritter SM, Mostert N. Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. 2016;i(iii):one–11.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Kienitz Eastward, Quintin EM, Saggar M, Bott NT, Royalty A, Hong DW, et al. Targeted intervention to increase creative capacity and performance: a randomized controlled pilot written report. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014;13:57–66.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Kleibeuker SW, De Dreu CK, Crone EA. Creativity development in boyhood: Insight from behavior, brain, and training studies. New directions for child and adolescent evolution. 2016;151:73–84. https://doi-org.ru.idm.oclc.org/x.1002/cad.20148
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Beghetto RA. Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? prospective teachers' response preferences. Thinking Skills & Creativity. 2007;2(1):1–ix.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Mourgues C, Barbot B, Tan M, Grigorenko EL. The Interaction Between Civilisation and the Development of Creativity. In The Oxford Handbook of Human Evolution and Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by Arnett Jensen L.;2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199948550.013.xvi
26. 26. Puccio GJ. From the dawn of humanity to the 21st century: creativity as an enduring survival skill. Journal of Artistic Behavior. 2017;51(4):330–334.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Beghetto RA. Does Assessment Kill Student Creativity? Educational Forum, the. Kappa Delta Pi. 3707 Woodview Trace, Indianapolis, IN 46268–1158. 2005.
28. 28. Sternberg RJ, Jarvin L, Grigorenko EL, editors. Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and success. Corwin Press; 2009.
29. 29. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE). All our futures: Creativity, culture and pedagogy. Sudbury: Department for Educational activity and Employment. 1999.
30. xxx. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Say-so (ACARA). The Full general Capabilities. 2012. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au
31. 31. Curriculum Development Council (CDC). Learning to learn: The mode forward in curriculum development. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer. 2000.
32. 32. Davies D, Jindal-Snape D, Collier C, Digby R, Hay P, Howe A. Creative learning environments in education—a systematic literature review. Thinking Skills & Creativity. 2013;8(1):fourscore–91.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Wallas M. The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Caryatid. 1926.
34. 34. Heinonen J, Numminen J, Hlushchuk Y, Antell H, Taatila Five, Suomala J. Default mode and executive networks areas: clan with the series social club in divergent thinking. PloS one. 2016 Sep 14;11(nine):e0162234. pmid:27627760
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Beaty RE, Benedek K, Wilkins RW, Jauk E, Fink A, Silvia PJ, et al. Inventiveness and the default network: A functional connectivity analysis of the creative encephalon at rest. Neuropsychologia. 2014 Nov 1;64:92–eight. pmid:25245940
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Beaty RE, Kenett YN, Christensen AP, Rosenberg Doc, Benedek One thousand, Chen Q, et al. Robust prediction of private artistic power from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018 Jan thirty;115(5):1087–92.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Faul F, Erdfelder East, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using Chiliad* Power 3.one: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods. 2009 Nov i;41(4):1149–60. pmid:19897823
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Ward TB. Cognition, inventiveness, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing. 2004;19(2):173–188.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Gabora L. Revenge of the "neurds": Characterizing artistic idea in terms of the structure and dynamics of memory. Creativity Research Journal. 2010;22(one):1–3.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. forty. Polman Due east, Emich KJ. Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Message. 2011;37(4):492–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398362 pmid:21317316
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Colzato LS, Szapora A, Hommel B. Meditate to create: the impact of focused-attention and open up-monitoring preparation on convergent and divergent thinking. Frontiers in psychology. 2012;iii:116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00116 pmid:22529832
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Sio UN, Ormerod TC. Does incubation heighten trouble solving? A meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin. 2009;135(ane):94. pmid:19210055
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Mann Due south, Cadman R. Does being bored make us more creative?. Creativity Research Journal. 2014;26(2):165–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901073
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Oppezzo G, Schwartz DL. Give your ideas some legs: The positive effect of walking on creative thinking. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, retention, and cognition. 2014;twoscore(iv):1142. http://dx.doi.org/x.1037/a0036577 pmid:24749966
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Ritter SM, Dijksterhuis A. Creativity-the unconscious foundations of the incubation period. Frontiers in Human being Neuroscience. 2014;8(1):215.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Wieth MB, Zacks RT. Fourth dimension of day effects on problem solving: When the non-optimal is optimal. Thinking & Reasoning. 2011;17(4):387–401.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Drago V, Aricò D, Heilman K, Foster P, Williamson J, Montagna P, et al. The Correlation between Sleep and Creativity. Nature Precedings. 2010.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Ritter SM, Damian RI, Simonton DK, van Baaren RB, Strick M, Derks J, et al. Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. J Exp Soc Psych. 2012;48:961–964.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Davidson TJ, Kloosterman F, Wilson MA. Hippocampal replay of extended experience. Neuron. 2009;63(iv):497–507. pmid:19709631
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Ólafsdóttir HF, Barry C, Saleem AB, Hassabis D, Spiers HJ. Hippocampal identify cells construct advantage related sequences through unexplored space. Elife. 2015;4:e06063. pmid:26112828
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Bendor D, Wilson MA. Biasing the content of hippocampal replay during sleep. Nature neuroscience. 2012;xv(10):1439. pmid:22941111
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Cai DJ, Mednick SA, Harrison EM, Kanady JC, Mednick SC. REM, not incubation, improves creativity by priming associative networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(25):10130–four.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Keynan JN, Cohen A, Jackont G, Green North, Goldway North, Davidov A, et al. Electrical fingerprint of the amygdala guides neurofeedback training for stress resilience. Nature Man Behaviour. 2019;3(one):63. pmid:30932053
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Guilford JP. Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. J Creative Beh. 1967;one: three–fourteen.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Mednick S. The associative basis of the artistic process. Psychological review. 1962;69(3):220.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1988.
57. 57. Runco MA. Everyone has artistic potential. Inventiveness from Potential to Realisation American Psychology Clan. 2004;21–30.
58. 58. Cropley AJ. Creativity and mental health in everyday life. Creativity Research Journal. 1990;three:167–178.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Simonton DK. Creative development as acquired expertise: theoretical issues and an empirical exam. Developmental Review. 2000;20(ii):283–318.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
60. lx. Amabile TM. Inventiveness and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business Review. 1996.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Litchfield R, Gilson LL. Curating collections of ideas: museum as metaphor in the direction of creativity ☆. Industrial Marketing Management. 2013; 42(1):106–112.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Rietzschel EF, Ritter SM. Moving from creativity to innovation. In Reiter-Palmon R & Kaufman J. C (Eds) Private Creativity in the workplace. Elsevier. 2018.
63. 63. Rietzschel EF, Nijstad BA, Stroebe W. The pick of creative ideas after private thought generation: choosing between creativity and impact. British Periodical of Psychology. 2011;101(one):47–68.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
64. 64. Rietzschel EF, Nijstad BA, Stroebe W. Furnishings of problem scope and creativity instructions on idea generation and selection. Creativity Enquiry Periodical. 2014;26(2):185–191.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
65. 65. Blair CS, Mumford MD. Errors in idea evaluation: Prefer- ence for the unoriginal? Journal of Creative Beliefs. 2007;41:196–222.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
66. 66. Gu X, Dijksterhuis A, Ritter SM. Fostering Children'south Artistic Thinking Skills with the five-I Training Program. Thinking Skills & Inventiveness. 2019;32:92–101. https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187118303468
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

dunbarsirly1936.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0229773

Share this post