انگیزش خلاق: دستاوردهای خلاقانه نشانگرهای اتونوم قلبی از تلاش در طی تفکر واگرا را پیش بینی می کند
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|30102||2014||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7640 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Biological Psychology, Volume 102, October 2014, Pages 30–37
Executive approaches to creativity emphasize that generating creative ideas can be hard and requires mental effort. Few studies, however, have examined effort-related physiological activity during creativity tasks. Using motivational intensity theory as a framework, we examined predictors of effort-related cardiac activity during a creative challenge. A sample of 111 adults completed a divergent thinking task. Sympathetic (PEP and RZ) and parasympathetic (RSA and RMSSD) outcomes were assessed using impedance cardiography. As predicted, people with high creative achievement (measured with the Creative Achievement Questionnaire) showed significantly greater increases in sympathetic activity from baseline to task, reflecting higher effort. People with more creative achievements generated ideas that were significantly more creative, and creative performance correlated marginally with PEP and RZ. The results support the view that creative thought can be a mental challenge.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
2. Results 2.1. Creative achievement and sympathetic activity Did people with more creative achievements try harder during the divergent thinking task? We estimated a multilevel model with time (0 = baseline, 1 = task) as a within-person variable and creative achievement as a between-person variable. For PEP, our primary measure of sympathetic activity, we found a significant within-person main effect, b = .88, SE = .37, p = .018: for the sample overall, PEP slowed from baseline to task, indicating lower sympathetic activity during the creativity task. There was no between-person main effect of creative achievement, b = 1.49, SE = 1.24, p = .229. Finally, there was a significant interaction between creative achievement and time, b = −.93, SE = .47, p = .048. The form of the interaction supported our predictions: as creative achievement increased, PEP decreased from baseline to task. Stated differently, people high in creative achievement showed stronger sympathetic activity (decreased PEP) during the creativity task compared to the baseline. This interaction is depicted in Fig. 1 as a scatterplot between each person's creative achievement score and the model-estimated change from baseline to task. Full-size image (7 K) Fig. 1. The relationship between Creative Achievement Questionnaire scores (log-transformed) and change in PEP (in ms) from baseline to task. Figure options For RZ, our exploratory measure of sympathetic activity, we found similar effects. Neither the overall within-person main effect of time (b = .91, SE = .62, p = .143) nor the between-person main effect of creative achievement (b = 2.06, SE = 1.87, p = .270) was significant. The interaction, however, was significant and had the predicted form, b = −1.89, SE = .86, p = .027. As with PEP, the RZ period decreased as creative achievement increased: people high in creative achievement had shorter RZ periods in the creativity task compared to the baseline (see Fig. 2). Full-size image (7 K) Fig. 2. The relationship between Creative Achievement Questionnaire scores (log-transformed) and change in RZ interval (in ms) from baseline to task. Figure options 2.2. Creative achievement and parasympathetic activity Did parasympathetic activity change during the creativity task? As noted earlier, motivational intensity theory is primarily concerned with sympathetic processes, but possible parasympathetic changes have been explored in several recent studies (e.g., Richter, 2010 and Silvia et al., 2014b). For RSA and RMSSD, we estimated multilevel models that included respiration as a within-person covariate. RSA declined as respiration rate increased (b = −.04, SE = .01, p = .001), a common finding ( Allen et al., 2007). Beyond that, we found a significant within-person main effect of time, b = .26, SE = .07, p < .001: RSA increased from the baseline to the divergent thinking task. There was no between-person main effect of creative achievement b = −.22, SE = .21, p = .297, and no interaction, b = −.01, SE = .09, p = .999. RMSSD, a time-domain measure, showed a similar pattern of effects. There was a marginal within-person main effect, b = 3.57, SE = 1.92, p = .063: RMSSD tended to increase from baseline to task, suggesting increased parasympathetic activity. Respiration rate did not significantly predict RMSSD at the within-person level, b = −.12, SE = .22, p = .580. There was no between-person main effect of creative achievement, b = −8.63, SE = 7.16, p = .228, and no interaction, b = −1.43, SE = 2.00, p = .474. 2.3. Additional autonomic outcomes We had no predictions concerning interbeat interval (IBI, in ms) and respiration rate (in cycles per minute), but we explored them as outcomes. For IBI, there was a significant within-person main effect, b = 15.11, SE = 4.57, p = .001: IBI was longer (heart rate was lower) in the creativity task than in the baseline. For respiration rate, we found only a significant within-person main effect, b = −.48, SE = .22, p = .033: respiration rate was lower in the creativity task compared to the baseline. Creative achievement did not significantly interact with time to predict IBI and respiration rate. 2.4. Divergent thinking performance How well did people do on the divergent thinking task? As noted earlier, these tasks provide two scores: fluency (the simple number of responses generated) and creativity (the scores given to the responses by raters). Creativity scores are our central outcome. Because we instructed the participants to emphasize quality over quantity, creativity scores reveal more about their success on the task than fluency scores. The three raters’ creativity scores were highly correlated: Cronbach's alpha for the three ratings was .87. We estimated creativity by forming a latent variable: the three raters’ scores served as the indicators. The reliability of this latent variable can be estimated using H, known as maximal reliability ( Drewes, 2000 and Hancock and Mueller, 2001). Maximal reliability was quite good, H = .94, consistent with past work with subjective scoring of divergent thinking tasks ( Silvia, 2011). As in our past work (see Silvia et al., 2008), fluency and creativity were weakly (and negatively) correlated, r (111) = −.12, p = .12. Our first model examined if people with more creative achievements performed better on the task. CAQ scores were the predictor, and creativity and fluency were outcomes. As Fig. 3 shows, CAQ scores significantly predicted the creativity of the responses (standardized β = .22, p = .033) but not fluency, the simple number of responses (standardized β = .12, p = .17). As expected, people with more creative achievements generated uses for a brick that were more creative. Full-size image (6 K) Fig. 3. Standardized effects of Creative Achievement Questionnaire scores (log transformed) on the creativity and fluency of divergent thinking during the Brick Task. Figure options We next explored whether task performance was associated with physiological changes in the creativity task. In a series of multilevel models, we included fluency and creativity as between-person predictors of within-person change from baseline to task. For PEP and RZ, our measures of sympathetic activity, fluency had marginal effects on PEP (b = −.09, SE = .05, p = .06) and RZ (b = −.14, SE = .51, p = .124); creativity, too, had marginal effects on PEP (b = −.72, SE = .45, p = .112) and RZ (b = −1.25, SE = .80, p = .119). In all cases, the direction of the effect indicated that as fluency and creativity increased, PEP and RZ decreased. The pattern of effects thus offers tentative, suggestive support for a link between sympathetic activity and task performance. For RSA and RMSSD, our measures of parasympathetic activity, no effects appeared. 1,