View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Self-Regulation Prompts Improve Creative Performance

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Self-Regulation Prompts Improve Creative Performance
Language: English
Authors: Aleksandra Zielinska (ORCID 0000-0002-1476-9828), Izabela Lebuda (ORCID 0000-0002-4715-1928), Marta Czerwonka (ORCID 0000-0001-8247-3749), Maciej Karwowski (ORCID 0000-0001-6974-1673)
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. 2025 59(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Self Control, Prompting, Creativity, Performance, Task Analysis, Design, Advertising, Creative Writing, Literary Genres, Commercial Art, Concept Formation, Intervention
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.674
ISSN: 0022-0175
2162-6057
Abstract: While people approach creative actions in diverse ways, navigating them effectively requires self-regulatory effort. In this preregistered experiment, we examined whether simple self-regulation prompts, provided across the stages of the creative process, make the outcomes more creative. Participants (N = 332) engaged in one of three creativity tasks--designing a logo, writing a short story, or preparing a greeting card--and documented their ongoing progress with photos. During the task, half of the participants received prompts tailored to their task progress, encouraging the employment of various self-regulatory mechanisms (e.g., uncertainty acceptance, adjusting approach). Consistent with our predictions, promoting a strategic approach throughout the task led participants to develop more creative products than those in the no-prompt condition. Moreover, we demonstrated two indirect paths behind the prompts' effectiveness: first, via enhancing positive active emotions, and second, through fostering a greater time commitment to the task. On a theoretical level, the proposed prompting approach highlights the advantages of self-regulatory engagement during creative actions beyond solely idea generation strategies. Methodologically, our study underscores the simplicity of such interventions and their potential broad applicability.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://osf.io/pg7d8
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1461973
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGWTqBeKwaa4gmjdueUh9-0AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHIT4NgQAVoqixF_UgIBEICBmhVOnjlvcBQnpDuPsN_pdgu9E_k5Tijg-4bdPsk-8E0Rz-P37wows51Jzb2zMWWP-Kud6aEP8qehIakKbt37p-8a3XCTrUmbUM3Q8CJWmlXAAlflCXgashHjfs2-QELyMbiSVnxVzBj5V2Gh-KjBYxLy0hgwF58wiek-Y7v17O_edEeH-g9LpKAw4yyUuxxvadiPPxfXCBfLIws=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186883847;3u701mar.25;2025Jul28.03:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186883847-1">Self‐Regulation Prompts Improve Creative Performance </title> <p>While people approach creative actions in diverse ways, navigating them effectively requires self‐regulatory effort. In this preregistered experiment, we examined whether simple self‐regulation prompts, provided across the stages of the creative process, make the outcomes more creative. Participants (N = 332) engaged in one of three creativity tasks—designing a logo, writing a short story, or preparing a greeting card—and documented their ongoing progress with photos. During the task, half of the participants received prompts tailored to their task progress, encouraging the employment of various self‐regulatory mechanisms (e.g., uncertainty acceptance, adjusting approach). Consistent with our predictions, promoting a strategic approach throughout the task led participants to develop more creative products than those in the no‐prompt condition. Moreover, we demonstrated two indirect paths behind the prompts' effectiveness: first, via enhancing positive active emotions, and second, through fostering a greater time commitment to the task. On a theoretical level, the proposed prompting approach highlights the advantages of self‐regulatory engagement during creative actions beyond solely idea generation strategies. Methodologically, our study underscores the simplicity of such interventions and their potential broad applicability.</p> <p>Keywords: creative self‐regulation; creative task; prompts; experiment; emotions; time‐on‐task</p> <p>Creativity requires deliberate effort. While it happens that ideas occur spontaneously, seemingly out of nowhere, people must use executive mechanisms and control processes to come up with genuinely creative ideas. Relying solely on associative processes is insufficient for overcoming obvious, context‐irrelevant ideas, applying idea generation strategies and assessing their effectiveness, evaluating ideas and selecting the most promising ones from various produced solutions, or avoiding being (self)repetitive. Indeed, the link between executive processing and creative thought is now firmly established, emphasizing the role of fluid intelligence (Gerwig et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref1">34</reflink>]), attention control (Frith et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref2">33</reflink>]), inhibition (Benedek, Franz, Heene, & Neubauer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]), or working memory capacity (Gong et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref4">36</reflink>]), among others.</p> <p>Yet, the importance of managing the creative process effectively becomes even more apparent when looking beyond ideation and exploring what is needed to implement the generated idea and transform it into a product that can be observed or experienced (Ivcevic, Grossman, Cotter, & Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref5">40</reflink>]; Ivcevic & Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref6">41</reflink>]). While executive functions play a critical role in these goal‐oriented actions, they represent one element of a more intricate regulatory system (e.g., Blair & Ku, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]). In this system, cognitive components are fundamental yet intertwined with emotional and behavioral ones. Consider such time‐ and resource‐consuming creative endeavors as developing advertising campaigns, programming mobile applications, or producing original music orchestration or arrangement. Successfully guiding such activities towards creative outcomes is built on effective planning, sustained efforts over extended periods, motivation to persist in the face of obstacles, managing emotional challenges, developing adaptive reactions to what is eventually achieved, and confronting potential dissatisfaction (see, e.g., Lin, Ivcevic, Kashdan, & Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref8">56</reflink>]). Therefore, the mechanisms people employ during their creative pursuits—especially complex and prolonged projects—have been recently theorized within a broader framework of creative self‐regulation (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref9">41</reflink>]; Zielińska & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref10">92</reflink>]). Building on the tradition of self‐regulated learning (SRL) research (Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref11">96</reflink>]), this perspective aims to capture a wide range of effortful mechanisms through which people control and regulate their thoughts, emotions, and actions across different phases of the creative process (Callan, Rubenstein, Ridgley, & McCall, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study explores how promoting self‐regulatory engagement during creative action impacts creative performance. While there are compelling theoretical perspectives concerning the controllable aspects of creative thought and action (e.g., Benedek & Jauk, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]; Ivcevic & Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref14">41</reflink>]; Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref15">75</reflink>]), along with empirical studies on relevant individual differences (e.g., Benedek et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]; Dygert & Jarosz, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref17">29</reflink>]; Frith et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]; Pan & Yu, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref19">65</reflink>]; Zabelina, Friedman, & Andrews‐Hanna, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref20">90</reflink>]) and neuroscientific investigations (Beaty, Benedek, Barry Kaufman, & Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]; Beaty, Silvia, Nusbaum, Jauk, & Benedek, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]; Rominger et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref23">68</reflink>]; Rosen et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref24">69</reflink>]), efforts to induce controlled and strategic mechanisms through interventional designs remain limited. Moreover, the existing research, which suggests that encouraging executive involvement or the adoption of specific strategies can indeed boost creative performance, has predominantly focused on idea generation tasks (Forthmann, Wilken, Doebler, & Holling, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]; Nusbaum & Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref26">63</reflink>]; Wilken, Forthmann, & Holling, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref27">88</reflink>]). Therefore, guided by the recent seven‐factor model of creative self‐regulation (Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda, & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref28">91</reflink>]; Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref29">94</reflink>]), we sought to broaden this line of research by using a more complex and dynamic setup where participants follow the process of conceptualization, refinement, and ultimately crafting a final creative product. Consequently, rather than endorsing a single strategy, we focus on fostering a self‐regulatory approach more comprehensively, taking the dynamics of the creative process into account, and potentially affecting performance across various creative activities.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-2">SELF‐REGULATION OF CREATIVE ACTION</hd> <p>Self‐regulation involves mechanisms through which people guide their goal‐directed activities over time and across changing contexts (Karoly, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref30">45</reflink>]). Over the past two decades, the creativity field has increasingly explored these mechanisms, particularly concerning the thinking processes behind idea generation. Not only have the specific strategies been identified (Bai, Mulder, Moerbeek, Kroesbergen, & Leseman, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]; Gilhooly, Fioratou, Anthony, & Wynn, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>]; Jia, Xu, & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref33">43</reflink>]) and effectively induced via instruction (Forthmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]; Nusbaum & Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref35">63</reflink>]; Wilken et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref36">88</reflink>]) to promote the generation of more original ideas but also executive interpretations have been offered to explain several key phenomena in creativity research, which although well‐replicated, were only partially understood in terms of underlying mechanisms. These include the "be creative" effect (Nusbaum, Silvia, & Beaty, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref37">64</reflink>]), the serial order effect (Beaty & Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]), and, more recently, the effect of exposure to examples (de Chantal, Zielińska, Lebuda, & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]). By integrating traditional associative explanations with an understanding of controlled, effortful mechanisms, there have been significant advancements in our comprehension of creative cognition.</p> <p>Yet, our understanding of the control and regulatory mechanisms supporting creative action might be limited precisely due to the ideation‐focused tasks used in most research. While some strategies that enhance performance in divergent thinking tasks might be useful when tackling real‐life creative challenges (e.g., perspective‐taking), others seem task‐specific and not directly implementable across various circumstances (e.g., disassembly strategy). Furthermore, the brief timeframe typically set for divergent thinking tasks might impede the identification of regulatory behaviors that unfold over time and are likely to emerge later in the creative process (Tolkamp, Verwaeren, Vriend, Riekhoff, & Nijstad, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref40">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>As such, research on the controllable aspects of divergent thinking aligns more with the perspective of creative metacognition than with the broader scope of creative self‐regulation (Lebuda & Benedek, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref41">54</reflink>]). Both metacognition and self‐regulation can be viewed as representing an overarching phenomenon of self‐regulated action, yet the latter explicitly addresses emotional, motivational, and behavioral regulation beyond cognitive considerations (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref42">44</reflink>]). Given its wider scope, the self‐regulation framework is apt for characterizing complex, prolonged creative actions observed in real‐world contexts (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref43">41</reflink>]; Rubenstein, Callan, & Ridgley, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref44">71</reflink>]). In such scenarios, managing the creative process requires not only cognitive engagement but also a great involvement of emotional and motivational resources.</p> <p>Specifically, two clusters of mechanisms were theorized as vital when pursuing a creative goal: revising and restrategizing, and sustaining and maintaining (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref45">41</reflink>]). The former group speaks to the inherent uncertainty of the creative process (Beghetto, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]), highlighting the lack of a fixed formula for success and the need to adapt and modify one's approaches. The latter underscores the resource‐intensive nature of creative endeavors, emphasizing the pivotal role of managing emotions and perseverance in achieving creative results. The specific mechanisms people employ tend to vary based on where they are in the process: from preparation and inspiration‐seeking, to actualizing their vision, and finally, post‐action reflection on outcomes and their potential impact on future endeavors (Callan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]; Rubenstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref48">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>The conceptualization of self‐regulatory mechanisms as phase‐based—initially derived from self‐regulated learning (SRL) theories (Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref49">96</reflink>])—inspired the recent models of creative self‐regulation (e.g., Ivcevic et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref50">40</reflink>]). One such model (Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref51">91</reflink>]; Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref52">94</reflink>]) identifies seven regulatory tactics distributed across three phases: forethought, performance, and self‐reflection. In the forethought phase, managing one's actions requires accepting uncertainty and expecting obstacles to overcome. Effective regulation during the performance phase involves adjusting approach, managing goals, and regulating emotions and dealing with obstacles. Finally, upon completion of the work, people benefit from taking an improving approach and expressing readiness to share the results with others. The proposed structure of creative self‐regulation and the usefulness of this framework in explaining differences in creative performance, frequency of creative activity, creative achievement, and anticipated future creative engagement has been confirmed in large‐sample studies involving adolescents (Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref53">94</reflink>]), adults (Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref54">91</reflink>]), as well as more specialized sample of teachers (Zielińska, Lebuda, Gop, & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref55">93</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present study builds on this model and further validates the creative self‐regulation framework using experimental design. Specifically, we examined if encouraging self‐regulatory mechanisms during creative action helps people obtain more creative outcomes. The tasks in our study were designed to encapsulate the entire creative process, from initial conceptualization and early sketches through iterative refinement to the completion of a final product. Moreover, the tasks covered diverse creative domains, allowing us to examine the effectiveness of our intervention across varied creative setups.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-3">STIMULATING SELF‐REGULATION</hd> <p>Traditionally, enhancing creativity‐relevant characteristics has been approached through creativity training (Birdi, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>]; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref57">74</reflink>]; Valgeirsdottir & Onarheim, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref58">83</reflink>]). Yet, more immediate techniques aimed at improving one's performance in creativity tasks have also gained significant interest, with a particular focus on instructional enhancement effects (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]; Di Mascio, Kalyuga, & Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]; Niu & Liu, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref61">62</reflink>]) and strategy manipulation (Forthmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>]; Nusbaum & Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref63">63</reflink>]; Wilken et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref64">88</reflink>]). Indeed, the potential to foster creativity through clear instructions or hints holds practical relevance for both educational and professional settings (Ashman, Kalyuga, & Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]; Niu & Liu, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref66">62</reflink>]). Furthermore, beyond the straightforward explanation that people tend to perform better when they are informed about what is expected (e.g., "be creative"; Acar, Runco, & Park, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>]) or how to achieve it (e.g., "try to look from a different perspective"; Forthmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref68">32</reflink>]; Rubenstein, Callan, Ridgley, & Henderson, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref69">72</reflink>]), the power of instructions to boost creativity carries two profound implications. On a theoretical level, such effects underscore the fact that people can deliberately adjust their approach to be more creative or employ specific strategies, which speaks to the controllable, self‐regulated nature of creativity (Nusbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref70">64</reflink>]). From a methodological viewpoint, it reinforces the idea that executive involvement can be triggered by simple and straightforward hints.</p> <p>However, the possibility of fostering creative performance using self‐regulatory cues beyond idea‐centered tasks remains largely untapped. Notable exceptions include works on strategies used during creative problem‐solving tasks (Callan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref71">21</reflink>]; Rubenstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref72">72</reflink>]; Rubenstein, Callan, Speirs Neumeister, Ridgley, & Hernández Finch, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref73">73</reflink>]). Although this research focused on <emph>measuring</emph> the employed strategies, the protocol used might inspire attempts to <emph>actively cue</emph> regulatory engagement. Importantly, managing the process that is not solely about generating many unique ideas but rather conceptualizing, refining, and creating a final product could greatly benefit from activating diverse regulatory mechanisms or mobilizing a strategic mindset (Chen, Powers, Katragadda, Cohen, & Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref74">23</reflink>]) rather than inducing a singular strategy. Valuable insights for developing such an approach can be drawn from interventional studies grounded in the self‐regulated learning framework (Bannert, Hildebrand, & Mengelkamp, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref75">7</reflink>]; Berthold, Nückles, & Renkl, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref76">18</reflink>]; Kauffman, Zhao, & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref77">51</reflink>]; Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref78">55</reflink>]; Müller & Seufert, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref79">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Various processes distinguished within the self‐regulated learning research, including goal setting, planning, monitoring, strategy use, and reflection, have been effectively stimulated through prompting procedures: short‐term interventions aimed precisely at mobilizing regulatory efforts (Bannert & Reimann, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>]; Reigeluth & Stein, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref81">66</reflink>]). The underlying assumption behind prompting is that people struggle to spontaneously employ regulation mechanisms during learning (Veenman, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref82">84</reflink>]). Therefore, simple activators in the form of reflective questions or hints can induce cognitive, metacognitive, and volitional activities, ultimately supporting the learning process and enhancing its outcomes (Bannert & Reimann, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>]). While studies often concentrated on prompting the use of cognitive or metacognitive strategies (Bannert et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref84">7</reflink>]; Berthold et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref85">18</reflink>]; Müller & Seufert, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref86">60</reflink>]), there are also promising findings on the role of motivational regulation prompts (Daumiller & Dresel, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref87">25</reflink>]; Kauffman, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref88">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recognizing the similarities between guiding the learning process and creative actions (Beghetto, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref89">14</reflink>]; Rubenstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref90">71</reflink>]) and building on the creative self‐regulation model informed by these parallels (Zielińska & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref91">92</reflink>]), the adaptation of prompting procedures to bolster creative performance seems promising. The present study dives into this very notion. Specifically, to enhance regulatory engagement during creative tasks, we introduced a set of prompts that span the range of mechanisms proposed by the model. Unlike conventional scaffolds used to nurture self‐regulated learning—which often offer generalized guidance irrespective of a person's progress or evolving regulatory needs—our approach sought to provide a more adaptive prompting. That is, following the phase‐based logic of the creative self‐regulation model, we aligned the self‐regulatory prompts with the different stages of participants' progress and, in turn, dynamically affected their performance.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-4">ON THE BROAD IMPACT OF SELF‐REGULATORY MOBILIZATION</hd> <p>An apparent reason why self‐regulation prompts are thought to enhance people's performance is that they improve the use of self‐regulatory mechanisms during a task. Put differently, these interventions positively impact the psychological processes they target, leading to better achievement and other anticipated outcomes. While such a scenario is both likely and desirable, as it points to the effectiveness of prompting procedures, the activation of one's self‐regulatory engagement may also have a ripple effect, extending its influence beyond the initially targeted self‐regulatory activities.</p> <p>Indeed, a meta‐analysis conducted in the educational field shows that the effect of SRL interventions on student achievement is only partially mediated by their actual engagement in SRL activities, hinting that other mechanisms are likely in play (Jansen, van Leeuwen, Janssen, Jak, & Kester, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref92">42</reflink>]). This may be partly due to the varied scope of SRL frameworks, which sometimes do not explicitly include motivational and affective factors in the proposed models or place less emphasis on these components (e.g., Winne & Hadwin, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref93">89</reflink>]), while at other times, they underscore their central role (e.g., Efklides, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref94">30</reflink>]). Consequently, the range of self‐regulatory activities measured in interventional studies varies (Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref95">42</reflink>]). Nevertheless, SRL interventions have been shown to enhance factors such as self‐efficacy beliefs, intrinsic task value, or effort and persistence (see Theobald, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref96">78</reflink>], for a meta‐analytic summary), and hence, they emerge as plausible intervening factors in the link between self‐regulatory mobilization and achievement.</p> <p>Several factors can be considered when explaining the effectiveness of prompts and exploring the underlying mechanisms behind any improvements in creative performance. We explored three such additional explanations. Firstly, we were interested in whether activating self‐regulatory approaches could alter participants' emotional responses to the task (e.g., Webb, Schweiger Gallo, Miles, Gollwitzer, & Sheeran, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref97">87</reflink>]). Secondly, given the central place that the efficacy beliefs hold in effective self‐regulation (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref98">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref99">6</reflink>]; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref100">96</reflink>]), including the translation of creative potential to behavior and achievement (Karwowski & Beghetto, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref101">46</reflink>]), and their robust links with specific creative self‐regulatory mechanisms (Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref102">91</reflink>]; Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref103">94</reflink>]), we considered potential changes in participants' confidence to perform task creatively (i.e., creative confidence; Karwowski, Han, & Beghetto, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref104">47</reflink>]). Finally, as the prompts were designed to promote participants' performance through increased persistence and perseverance (cf. De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref105">27</reflink>]; Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref106">61</reflink>]; Taylor, Kaufman, & Barbot, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref107">77</reflink>]), we examined whether those who were prompted indeed exerted more effort, manifested in a longer time dedicated to the task (see Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref108">77</reflink>], for a similar approach to conceptualizing effort).</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-5">THE PRESENT STUDY</hd> <p>In this preregistered study (see the Open Science Framework [OSF] archive: https://osf.io/hbj3u), we tested whether simple self‐regulation prompts make creative outcomes more likely. Our study employed a mixed‐model design, allowing us to investigate both between‐ and within‐subject effects. Specifically, we examined differences in creativity, emotions, and confidence between groups receiving self‐regulatory prompts and those not receiving them. Additionally, we looked at more dynamic patterns of changes over time. By having participants document and share their ongoing progress via photos, we were able to capture the evolving impact of prompts on both creative performance and the accompanying motivational and emotional processes.</p> <p>One challenge in studying how self‐regulatory behavior unfolds and shapes creative performance is that our understanding of the other temporal nuances of the creative process is limited. Given the broad scope of self‐regulation, which takes into account various aspects of people's functioning, it seems crucial to examine it alongside other temporal shifts that occur during creative actions, particularly those related to emotional and motivational changes. While the role of various dynamic and situation‐specific states in creative engagement and performance is well‐acknowledged, much of the research has examined relatively static relationships. The noteworthy exceptions include studies that utilize microlongitudinal designs, incorporating multiple measurements throughout task engagement (Karwowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref109">47</reflink>]). Using this approach in our study enabled us to test whether the effect of self‐regulatory prompts may be attributed to changes in participants' creative confidence and affect during task performance.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-6">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186883847-7">PARTICIPANTS</hd> <p>Three hundred thirty‐two participants (57% female) aged 18–45 (<emph>M</emph> = 29.71, <emph>SD</emph> = 7.15) were selected from a larger pool of <emph>N</emph> = 933. The high exclusion rate resulted from the rigorous preregistered criteria (see the OSF archive). Specifically, and in line with our protocol, we excluded data from the participants who: (a) failed the attention check (there were three questions testing participants' carefulness throughout the survey; <emph>N</emph> = 246); (b) submitted blurry photos that could not be scored for creativity, <emph>N</emph> = 223; (c) either provided no responses to open‐ended questions or submitted nonsensical, superficial (e.g., "OK", "super", "everything's fine"), or variants of "I don't know" answers, thus not adhering to our prompting procedure in a meaningful way (this criterion only applies to the experimental group; <emph>N</emph> = 132). All participants were remunerated for agreeing to take part in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-8">PROCEDURE, CREATIVE TASK, AND EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION</hd> <p>Figure 1 provides a graphical summary of our study design and procedures. The study was conducted using an online survey platform and consisted of two parts. The first part, which was the same for the experimental (<emph>N</emph> = 145) and control (<emph>N</emph> = 187) groups, included several standardized scales and questionnaires. However, these are beyond the primary focus of the current investigation.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01mar25/jocb674-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb674-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 bcstripbcstripSummary of study procedures." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In the second part, all participants were instructed to complete one of the three randomly assigned creative tasks: (a) designing a logo, (b) writing a short story, or (c) making a greeting card. They were directed to use computer programs or write and draw on a piece of paper and were given a maximum time limit of 30 minutes to complete the task (see Appendix A for the specific task instructions).</p> <p>Additionally, participants were asked to take three photos representing their working progress: (a) a photo of a preliminary version of the product or initial sketch, taken shortly after the beginning of work, (b) a photo illustrating a significant advancement, captured before achieving the desired final effect, and (c) a photo of the final version of the product, taken before the allocated time for the task ended. Participants were asked to take photos on the go and upload them to the survey to continue the study. Through photos, we intended to document participants' progression from the forethought, to performance, and to self‐reflection phases. The task was self‐paced, allowing participants to determine the appropriate timing for each photo. Brief descriptions of the phases were provided to assist in this decision. The forethought phase, presented as "Preparation and inspiration seeking," was described as entailing a general vision of what one wants to achieve, information search, exploring ideas, drafting or just thinking about which direction to go. The description of the performance phase, labeled "Working on the task," highlighted the necessity of not only quite exactly knowing what to do but also doing it and advancing the work. It was emphasized that people work differently in this phase: sometimes sticking to the initial plan, and other times experimenting, improvising, and revisiting the ideas. Lastly, the self‐reflection phase, described as "Task completion" was introduced as occurring when the work has been completed, motivating one to reflect on and emotionally react to the effects (see the OSF archive for detailed content: https://osf.io/pg7d8).</p> <p>During the task, the experimental group was prompted with open‐ended questions that encouraged their self‐regulatory engagement. We developed the prompts based on the previous research on creative self‐regulation (Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref110">91</reflink>]; Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref111">94</reflink>]), which identified seven mechanisms supporting creative action. Since the range of these mechanisms varies across the three phases—forethought, performance, and self‐reflection—the prompts were given in three rounds. The first set of prompts was provided after attaching the first photo and targeted the mechanisms of Uncertainty Acceptance, and Obstacle Expectations. The second set was designed to scaffold Managing Goals, Adjusting Approach, and Emotion Regulation and Dealing with Obstacles, and was presented after attaching the second photo. Finally, the last set of prompts displayed after the third photo was attached, addressed participants' Improving Approach, and Readiness for Sharing. The specific prompts used are presented in Table 1. The control group did not receive any alternative prompts.</p> <p>1 Table Self‐Regulation Prompts Used Across Creative Task Phases</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Phase</th><th align="left">Targeted mechanism</th><th align="left">Prompt</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Forethought</td><td align="left">Uncertainty acceptance</td><td align="left">Try to imagine how your work on this task will proceed. What might happen? What do you expect, and what might surprise you?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Obstacle expectations</td><td align="left">Think about and briefly describe any difficulties you might encounter while working on this task. What do you think might help you overcome these difficulties?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Performance</td><td align="left">Managing goals</td><td align="left">How do you imagine the final outcome of your work at this stage? Consider which ideas are worth pursuing further and which ones you want to replace. Perhaps you now have some new ideas that seem worth following?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adjusting approach</td><td align="left">How effective have your current methods been in working on this task? Consider if you would like to change your approach in any way.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Emotion regulation and dealing with obstacles</td><td align="left">What has been the most challenging aspect of this task for you up to this point? How are you handling it? Think about any additional steps you might take to overcome these challenges.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐reflection</td><td align="left">Improving approach</td><td align="left">What would you do differently if you were to do this task again? What would you change in your logo/your short story/your greeting card, and the way you work on it?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Readiness for sharing</td><td align="left">Reflect on how satisfied you are with the results of your work. Would you want to share them with someone and showcase what you have accomplished? If so, who would that be?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After attaching each photo, participants from both experimental and control groups were asked about their confidence in developing a creative product for the task. They also reported on the emotions they experienced during the just‐finished stage of work. Once the task was completed, they indicated the intensity of using various self‐regulatory mechanisms throughout the process (see Measures for details).</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-10">MEASURES</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186883847-11">Creative products</hd> <p>The creative products—logos, short stories, and greeting cards—were independently assessed by four judges (the authors of this article) in terms of their creativity level (i.e., how uncommon, clever, or surprising the product is) on the scale from 1 = <emph>not creative</emph> to 5 = <emph>very creative</emph>. The judges were blind to the condition participants were ascribed to. Each product was rated three times, corresponding to the phases of working on the task (forethought, performance, self‐reflection) and based on the photos submitted by the participants. Judges provided their ratings using an online survey, where each participant's set of three sequential photos was displayed on separate pages. The sets were presented in a randomized order. We standardized each judge's ratings at the product level to account for judges' severity (Long & Pang, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref112">58</reflink>]). Judges' scores were reliable at each time‐point (ω = .83, ω = .81, ω = .83, respectively) and thus averaged. Examples of participants' products representing various levels of judge‐assessed creativity are presented in Supplementary Online Material [SOM] Figure S1.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-12">Dynamic creative confidence</hd> <p>State‐like creative confidence was measured at three time points to capture the dynamic of participants' perceptions (for a similar approach, see, e.g., Karwowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref113">47</reflink>]). Participants were asked three questions each time they submitted a photo to the survey: (a) "How confident are you in your ability to handle this task?" (b) "How confident are you that your working style allows you to create something creative?" (c) "How confident are you that what you ultimately present will be creative?" They responded using a 0–100% slider. Responses were reliable (ω = .87, ω = .92, ω = .95, for each phase, respectively) and averaged at the time‐point level.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-13">Emotions</hd> <p>Participants reported their emotions each time they submitted a photo to the survey. They used a scale ranging from 1 = <emph>not at all</emph> to 7 = <emph>very intensively</emph> to rate how intensely they felt each of the eight listed emotions at that moment. For parsimony, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the data at each time point. Two‐ and three‐factor solutions were suggested by a parallel analysis (see SOM Figure S2). However, a four‐factor solution was justified based on both theoretical premises (Barrett & Russell, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref114">9</reflink>]) and previous findings (e.g., Zielińska, Lebuda, & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref115">95</reflink>]), and it indeed resulted in a good model fit (see SOM Table S1; we note, however, that the RMSEA values were slightly above the typically recommended criteria, e.g., Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref116">39</reflink>]). Thus, we proceeded with a four‐factor solution (see SOM Table S1 for specific EFA results), which included positive active (i.e., happy, joyful, interested), negative active (i.e., annoyed, frustrated), negative passive (i.e., dull, besotted), and mixed emotions (i.e., surprised). Average scores were computed at the time‐point level to represent the factors identified in the EFA.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-14">Time‐on‐task</hd> <p>Time stamps were collected to determine how much time participants dedicated to the task during the forethought, performance, and self‐reflection. A phase concluded when a participant chose to submit a photo. The forethought phase began when the task was initiated. For subsequent phases, the start was marked when a participant clicked the "I want to go back to working on the task" button after attaching a photo and completing additional measures. Consequently, the time spent on uploading photos, responding to prompt questions (the experimental group), and self‐report measures of creative confidence and emotions was excluded from the time‐on‐task metric. We excluded data from two participants whose overall time‐on‐task was aberrant, specifically, >3.0 standard deviations from the mean. Due to skewed distribution, we log‐transformed the time scores before analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-15">Creative self‐regulation</hd> <p>When the task ended, participants completed the Creative Self‐Regulation Questionnaire (CSR; Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref117">94</reflink>]; Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref118">91</reflink>]) to report on their regulatory mechanisms used during the just‐performed creative task. Seven items explicitly asked about the period before the task started (forethought phase) and covered two creative self‐regulation factors: Obstacle Expectations (ω = .72) and Uncertainty Acceptance (ω = .80). Thirteen items were related to during‐task behavior (performance phase) and measured three dimensions: Adjusting Approach (ω = .80), Managing Goals (ω = .76), and Emotion Regulation and Dealing with Obstacles (ω = .84). Finally, six items asked about a post‐task behavior (self‐reflection phase) and covered two specific mechanisms: Improving Approach (ω = .72), and Readiness for Sharing (ω = .67). Responses were provided on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = <emph>definitely not</emph>, 7 = <emph>definitely yes</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-16">DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH</hd> <p>In line with our preregistration (https://osf.io/hbj3u), to test how the self‐regulatory prompts affected participants' creative performance, we relied on the 2 [<emph>Condition</emph>] x 3 [<emph>Time</emph>] mixed ANOVA. We used a similar approach to examine potential condition‐ and time‐dependent differences in creative confidence, emotions, and time spent on the task. Also, a 2 [<emph>Condition</emph>] x 7 [<emph>Creative Self‐Regulation Strategy</emph>] mixed ANOVA was used to examine the differences in general self‐regulatory tactics assessed by participants post‐task. Given the hierarchical nature of our data, as an additional check, we repeated our focal analyses using a multilevel modeling (MLM) approach and obtained the same results (see SOM Table S2). To adhere to our preregistered analytic plan and for simplicity, we present the results from the mixed ANOVA.</p> <p>All post‐hoc pairwise comparisons reported below were conducted using Holm's correction. There were instances when we ran post‐hoc tests even in the absence of significant <emph>Condition x Time</emph> interaction. This decision is supported by the fact that the first set of prompts was presented after the initial task phase, i.e., following the attachment of the first photo. Consequently, the scores obtained from the first measurement serve as a baseline, reflecting individual differences among participants, and make it challenging to detect any interaction effect. Thus, we deemed it appropriate to compare the conditions across the time points, expecting no differences in the first measurement and thereby corroborating the effectiveness of our randomization.</p> <p>To examine the possibility of different patterns of our findings depending on the specific task a participant performed (i.e., logo, short story, or greeting card), we ran two‐way mixed ANOVAs with both <emph>Condition</emph> and <emph>Task type</emph> as between‐subject factors. The <emph>Condition</emph> x <emph>Task type</emph> interaction was insignificant when any variable of interest (i.e., product creativity, creative confidence, emotions, time‐on‐task) was introduced as the dependent variable (see SOM Table S3 for details). In light of the absence of significant moderating effects due to task type, we present the results as an aggregate across all three tasks.</p> <p>The indirect effects of prompts on product creativity were tested in mediation analysis. We used bias‐corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs) obtained with 5000 bootstrap samples to determine the statistical significance of indirect effects.</p> <p>All analyses were performed in R (version 4.3.0) using <emph>lavaan</emph> (Rosseel, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref119">70</reflink>]), <emph>psych</emph> (Revelle, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref120">67</reflink>]), <emph>rstatix</emph> (Kassambara, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref121">49</reflink>]), <emph>lme4</emph> (Bates, Mächler, Bolker, & Walker, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref122">10</reflink>]), and basic R packages. Data and scripts are available for reanalysis in the OSF repository: https://osf.io/pg7d8.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-17">RESULTS</hd> <p>Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the person‐level aggregated variables. For all measures, the Intra‐class Correlation Coefficients (ICC) indicate that a substantial proportion of the variability (all ICCs > .56, <emph>Me</emph> = .69) occurred between participants rather than stemming from changes across time points (i.e., within‐person variation).</p> <p>2 Table Descriptive Statistics for the Person‐Level Aggregated Variables Across Three Measurements</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left">Time 1</th><th align="left">Time 2</th><th align="left">Time 3</th><th align="left">ICC</th></tr><tr><th align="left">M</th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">M</th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">M</th><th align="left">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Product creativity</td><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">−.22</td><td align="char" char=".">.75</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.70</td><td align="char" char=".">.16</td><td align="char" char=".">.83</td><td align="char" char=".">.61</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Experimental</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.26</td><td align="char" char=".">.74</td><td align="char" char=".">.40</td><td align="char" char=".">.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Creative confidence</td><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">69.16</td><td align="char" char=".">24.57</td><td align="char" char=".">70.09</td><td align="char" char=".">25.72</td><td align="char" char=".">70.03</td><td align="char" char=".">27.27</td><td align="char" char=".">.85</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Experimental</td><td align="char" char=".">71.77</td><td align="char" char=".">19.76</td><td align="char" char=".">73.78</td><td align="char" char=".">21.14</td><td align="char" char=".">72.27</td><td align="char" char=".">24.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Positive active emotions</td><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">4.25</td><td align="char" char=".">1.55</td><td align="char" char=".">4.29</td><td align="char" char=".">1.71</td><td align="char" char=".">4.56</td><td align="char" char=".">1.79</td><td align="char" char=".">.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Experimental</td><td align="char" char=".">4.67</td><td align="char" char=".">1.34</td><td align="char" char=".">4.75</td><td align="char" char=".">1.35</td><td align="char" char=".">5.03</td><td align="char" char=".">1.44</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Negative active emotions</td><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">2.62</td><td align="char" char=".">1.65</td><td align="char" char=".">2.49</td><td align="char" char=".">1.72</td><td align="char" char=".">2.38</td><td align="char" char=".">1.72</td><td align="char" char=".">.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Experimental</td><td align="char" char=".">2.26</td><td align="char" char=".">1.36</td><td align="char" char=".">2.41</td><td align="char" char=".">1.53</td><td align="char" char=".">2.25</td><td align="char" char=".">1.49</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Negative passive emotions</td><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">2.23</td><td align="char" char=".">1.33</td><td align="char" char=".">2.09</td><td align="char" char=".">1.34</td><td align="char" char=".">1.97</td><td align="char" char=".">1.37</td><td align="char" char=".">.69</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Experimental</td><td align="char" char=".">2.18</td><td align="char" char=".">1.37</td><td align="char" char=".">1.95</td><td align="char" char=".">1.25</td><td align="char" char=".">1.87</td><td align="char" char=".">1.32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mixed emotions</td><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">3.26</td><td align="char" char=".">1.86</td><td align="char" char=".">3.06</td><td align="char" char=".">1.76</td><td align="char" char=".">3.17</td><td align="char" char=".">1.89</td><td align="char" char=".">.56</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Experimental</td><td align="char" char=".">3.40</td><td align="char" char=".">1.83</td><td align="char" char=".">3.03</td><td align="char" char=".">1.72</td><td align="char" char=".">3.07</td><td align="char" char=".">1.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Time‐on‐Task</td><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">261.04</td><td align="char" char=".">417.51</td><td align="char" char=".">302.11</td><td align="char" char=".">366.50</td><td align="char" char=".">243.52</td><td align="char" char=".">279.20</td><td align="char" char=".">.46</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Experimental</td><td align="char" char=".">263.66</td><td align="char" char=".">298.27</td><td align="char" char=".">423.47</td><td align="char" char=".">369.55</td><td align="char" char=".">340.78</td><td align="char" char=".">336.53</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. ICCs were estimated in multilevel empty models. Creativity ratings were standardized at the product level to control for judges' severity before aggregation. Descriptive statistics for Time‐on‐Task are reported in seconds. The Time‐on‐Task scores were log‐transformed before analyses. ICC = intra‐class correlation coefficients.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-18">EFFECT OF SELF‐REGULATION PROMPTS ON PRODUCT CREATIVITY</hd> <p>We used a mixed ANOVA (2 [<emph>Condition</emph>] x 3 [<emph>Time</emph>]) to examine the potential changes in product creativity as determined by the time of taking the photo (i.e., first, second, or third) and self‐regulatory prompts (or the lack of them). We observed a significant effect of <emph>Time</emph>, <emph>F</emph>(1.55, 489.84) = 64.89, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .17, indicating an increase in product creativity over time (see Figure 2). Importantly, we also found a significant main effect of <emph>Condition</emph>, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref123">1</reflink>, 317) = 9.34, <emph>p</emph> = .002, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .03, with participants who received self‐regulatory prompts exhibiting higher overall creativity in their products compared to the control group (see Figure 2). The interaction <emph>Condition x Time</emph> was non‐significant, <emph>F</emph>(1.55, 489.84) = 2.06, <emph>p</emph> = .141, suggesting that the positive effect of self‐regulatory prompts on product creativity was consistent across the time points. However, post‐hoc tests showed no between‐group differences in the first measurement (<emph>p</emph> = .242). Considering that the first set of prompts was presented after the attachment of the first photo, we interpret this null effect as a confirmation of the successful randomization. In the subsequent measurements, the prompted group outperformed the control group in both the second (<emph>p</emph> = .003, <emph>d</emph> = .38) and third (<emph>p</emph> = .022, <emph>d</emph> = .30) ratings.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01mar25/jocb674-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb674-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 bcstripbcstripComparison of judges' ratings of product creativity across task duration in prompted and non‐prompted groups." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186883847-20">EFFECT OF SELF‐REGULATION PROMPTS ON CREATIVE CONFIDENCE, EMOTIONS, AND TIME‐ON‐TASK</hd> <p>We conducted similar mixed ANOVAs with creative confidence, various emotional states, and time spent on the task as dependent variables. For dynamic creative confidence, neither <emph>Time</emph> (<emph>F</emph>(1.53, 501.26) = 2.01, <emph>p</emph> = .146) nor <emph>Condition</emph> (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref124">1</reflink>, 328) = 1.24, <emph>p</emph> = .267) nor interaction effects (<emph>F</emph>(1.53, 501.26) = .52, <emph>p</emph> = .545) were significant (see SOM Figure S3). Likewise, no significant effects were found when negative active emotions served as the dependent variable (<emph>Condition</emph>: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref125">1</reflink>, 328) = 1.43, <emph>p</emph> = .233; <emph>Time</emph>: <emph>F</emph>(1.79, 585.98) = 2.41, <emph>p</emph> = .097; <emph>Condition x Time</emph>: <emph>F</emph>(1.79, 585.98) = 2.44, <emph>p</emph> = .095; see SOM Figure S3).</p> <p>However, regardless of group, negative passive emotions significantly decreased over time, <emph>F</emph>(1.86, 609.13) = 12.31, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .04 (see SOM Figure S3), resulting in lower levels of negative affect during the second measurement compared to the first (<emph>p</emph> = .005, <emph>d</emph> = .17), and during the third measurement compared to the initial (<emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>d</emph> = .24) and the preceding scores (<emph>p</emph> = .043, <emph>d</emph> = .12). Neither the <emph>Condition</emph> (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref126">1</reflink>, 328) = .56, <emph>p</emph> = .455) nor the interaction term (<emph>F</emph>(1.86, 609.13) = .30, <emph>p</emph> = .725) yielded significant results. In terms of mixed emotions, participants did not differ significantly depending on whether they were prompted or not (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref127">1</reflink>, 328) = .00, <emph>p</emph> = .972). There were, however, time‐dependent changes, <emph>F</emph>(1.87, 613.96) = 4.82, <emph>p</emph> = .010, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .01, with participants experiencing the greater intensity of mixed emotions during the first phase compared to the second (<emph>p</emph> = .009, <emph>d</emph> = .16; see SOM Figure S3). The <emph>Condition</emph> x Time interaction was insignificant (<emph>F</emph>(1.87, 613.96) = .89, <emph>p</emph> = .405).</p> <p>Both <emph>Time</emph>, <emph>F</emph>(1.85, 607.32) = 25.69, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .07, and <emph>Condition</emph>, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref128">1</reflink>, 328) = 7.65, <emph>p</emph> = .006, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .02, yielded significant effects on positive emotions (see Figure 3). Participants' positive feelings were higher in the third measurement compared to the second (<emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>d</emph> = .33) and those experienced just after task initiation (<emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>d</emph> = .33). Crucially, the group receiving self‐regulatory prompts reported higher overall positive emotions than the control group. The <emph>Condition x Time</emph> interaction effect was insignificant (<emph>F</emph>(1.85, 607.32) = .15, <emph>p</emph> = .849). Notably, since participants were asked about emotions felt during the just‐finished phase, the initial ratings should not differ across the conditions and this was indeed the case (<emph>p</emph> = .070). The differences between groups were only marginally insignificant in the second measurement (<emph>p</emph> = .057) and were less consistent in the final stage (<emph>p</emph> = .070).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01mar25/jocb674-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb674-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 bcstripbcstripChanges in positive active emotions and time‐on‐task in prompted and non‐prompted groups." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Lastly, the effect of condition on time spent on the task was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref129">1</reflink>, 328) = 9.63, <emph>p</emph> = .002, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .03, implying that the self‐regulatory prompts motivated participants to engage in the task longer (see Figure 3). There was also a significant effect of <emph>Time</emph>, <emph>F</emph>(1.60, 525.43) = 3.92, <emph>p</emph> = .029, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .01. However, the influence of the prompts remained consistent throughout different stages of task execution, as indicated by a non‐significant interaction effect, <emph>F</emph>(1.60, 525.43) = 2.06, <emph>p</emph> = .138. In the initial phase, before any prompts were presented, both groups spent a similar amount of time on the task (<emph>p</emph> = .754). During the second phase, the experimental group worked longer (<emph>p</emph> = .019, <emph>d</emph> = .36) and this pattern tended to continue in the last phase (<emph>p</emph> = .090, <emph>d</emph> = .29).</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-22">MECHANISMS BEHIND THE EFFECT OF PROMPTS ON PRODUCT CREATIVITY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186883847-23">Influence on regulatory behavior</hd> <p>We used a mixed ANOVA (2 [<emph>Condition</emph>] x 7 [<emph>CSR factor</emph>]) to inspect whether the influence of prompts was reflected in participants' self‐reports of their regulatory behavior. Unexpectedly, the main effect of <emph>Condition</emph> was non‐significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref130">1</reflink>, 328) = .06, <emph>p</emph> = .804, nor was there any interaction effect, <emph>F</emph>(3.48, 1140.21) = 1.53, <emph>p</emph> = .199. This suggests that the simple prompts did not alter the overall self‐regulatory approach reported by participants post‐task.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-24">Indirect effects through positive emotions and time‐on‐task</hd> <p>In light of the observed differences in positive affect and time‐on‐task among the groups, we conducted planned analyses to evaluate the possible indirect effects of prompts on product creativity. For this purpose, we ran a mediation model with two parallel mediators (see Figure 4). The first portion of the model tested if prompts led to changes in product creativity by enhancing positive active emotions. The second part of the model delved into whether self‐regulatory incentives might inspire greater time commitment to the task, thereby influencing product creativity. We utilized a two‐step analytical method to discern the influence of prompts on shifts in product creativity. In the first‐stage analysis, we regressed the third and final creativity scores on the initial, baseline ratings. Then, we retained the residuals—the change in product creativity—to serve as the dependent variable in our mediation model. The link between initial and final creativity scores was significant and robust (β = .55, <emph>p</emph> < .001) yet still indicated substantial variability or room for change over time (see also Figure 2), attributable to the effects of prompts. Positive active emotions and time‐on‐task, as obtained from the second measurement, were included as mediators. We chose this time point to delineate a temporal precedence: the random assignment to the experimental condition, the measurement of potential mediators, and any resultant changes in product creativity.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01mar25/jocb674-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb674-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 bcstripbcstripMultiple mediation model: positive active emotions and time‐on‐task as parallel mediators in the link between condition and change in product creativity. Note. T2 = second measurement. ∆Product Creativity = change in product creativity represented by the residuals from a separate regression, where the final creativity scores were regressed on the baseline ratings. All variables have been standardized except for the Condition variable; accordingly, the estimates obtained for the effect of Condition on Positive Active Emotions, Time‐on‐Task, and ΔProduct Creativity can be interpreted as equivalents of Cohen's d. Coefficients for the indirect effects are reported unstandardized. Time‐on‐Task scores were log‐transformed before analyses and are visualized in their standardized form." /> </p> <p></p> <p>A graphical overview and a detailed summary of the mediation model are presented in Figure 4 and Table 3, respectively. Receiving simple self‐regulatory prompts enhanced participants' positive active emotions (<emph>d</emph> = .30, <emph>p</emph> = .005), which, in turn, improved their product creativity (β = .18, <emph>p</emph> = .001). This indirect effect was significant (b = .04, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [.01,.08], <emph>p</emph> = .034) and accounted for 22% of the total effect. At the same time, participants motivated to self‐regulate their activity dedicated more time to the task (<emph>d</emph> = .37, <emph>p</emph> = .001), resulting in a greater enhancement of their product creativity (β = .17, <emph>p</emph> = .003). Overall, this yielded a significant and positive indirect effect (b = .04, 95% C<emph>I</emph> [.01,.09], <emph>p</emph> = .026), responsible for 25% of the total effect. When accounting for both positive active emotions and time spent on the task, the direct effect of condition on product creativity was non‐significant (<emph>d</emph> = .12, <emph>p</emph> = .258). In sum, we demonstrated two modes of how our prompts enhanced creative performance: firstly, by fostering positive, energizing emotions, and secondly, by promoting a greater time engagement to the task, ultimately leading to a significant and positive total effect of prompts on creative improvement.</p> <p>3 Table Detailed Results from a Multiple Mediation Model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Regression estimates</th><th align="left"><italic>b</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">95% <italic>CI</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic><sup>A</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Condition</td><td align="left">➔</td><td align="left">PA (T2)</td><td align="char" char=".">.47</td><td align="char" char=".">.17</td><td align="left">[.14,.79]</td><td align="char" char=".">.005</td><td align="char" char=".">.30</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Condition</td><td align="left">➔</td><td align="left">Time‐on‐task (T2)</td><td align="char" char=".">.68</td><td align="char" char=".">.20</td><td align="left">[.29, 1.07]</td><td align="char" char=".">.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.37</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Condition</td><td align="left">➔</td><td align="left">∆Product creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="left">[−.07,.24]</td><td align="char" char=".">.258</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PA</td><td align="left">➔</td><td align="left">∆Product creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="left">[.03,.12]</td><td align="char" char=".">.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Time‐on‐Task</td><td align="left">➔</td><td align="left">∆Product creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="left">[.02,.10]</td><td align="char" char=".">.003</td><td align="char" char=".">.17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Indirect effects</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Condition ➔ PA (T2) ➔ ∆Product creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="left">[.01,.08]</td><td align="char" char=".">.034</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Condition ➔ Time‐on‐Task (T2)➔ ∆product Creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="left">[.01,.09]</td><td align="char" char=".">.026</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total effect</td><td align="char" char=".">.17</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="left">[.01,.32]</td><td align="char" char=".">.033</td><td align="char" char=".">.24</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. T2 = second measurement. PA = positive active emotions. ∆Product Creativity = change in product creativity represented by the residuals from a separate regression, where the final creativity scores were regressed on the baseline ratings. A = All variables have been standardized except for the Condition variable; accordingly, the estimates obtained for the effect of Condition on Positive Active Emotions, Time‐on‐Task, and ΔProduct Creativity can be interpreted as equivalents of Cohen's d. Coefficients for the indirect effects reported in this column are partially standardized; that is, they are based on the standardized form of all variables except for Condition.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-26">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The present research demonstrates that providing people with simple self‐regulatory prompts leads them to produce more creative products. This finding contributes to the literature on the role of effortful, executively demanding processes involved in creative thought and action (Benedek & Jauk, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref131">17</reflink>]; Frith et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref132">33</reflink>]; Gilhooly et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref133">35</reflink>]; Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref134">75</reflink>]) by taking the recently offered self‐regulatory perspective (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref135">41</reflink>]; Zielińska & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref136">92</reflink>]). Although existing evidence suggests that simple instructions can promote strategic involvement during creative task performance—either implicitly (e.g., "be creative"; Nusbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref137">64</reflink>]) or explicitly (e.g., "try to reconstruct the problem"; Forthmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref138">32</reflink>]; Nusbaum & Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref139">63</reflink>]; Wilken et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref140">88</reflink>])—most research has primarily focused on the short‐term, divergent thinking problems. The strategies induced were thus task‐specific, direct, and had somewhat limited transferability to other creative contexts. Consider, for instance, creative writing: a short story (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref141">77</reflink>]), an essay (Urban & Urban, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref142">82</reflink>]), or, more pertinently, a research article. Relying solely on ideation strategies might come unstuck when one needs to draft, revise, or sometimes start the work over, not to mention dealing with frustration or creative blocks. The question of what mechanisms help people navigate such complex, prolonged creative actions and whether an effective approach can be cued and supported has been scarcely tackled in research.</p> <p>Building upon the correlational studies that identified key regulatory mechanisms in creative action (Ivcevic et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref143">40</reflink>]; Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref144">91</reflink>]; Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref145">94</reflink>]) and drawing inspiration from prompt‐based interventions in self‐regulated learning research (e.g., Daumiller & Dresel, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref146">25</reflink>]; Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref147">55</reflink>]), our investigation represents one of the first experimental attempts to encourage a deliberate, strategic approach during complex creative action. Specifically, our intervention focused on the mechanisms people employ across different stages of creative work—forethought, performance, and self‐reflection—supporting them throughout the process. Rather than instructing a specific, ideation‐oriented strategy, we employed reflective, open‐ended questions that activated a range of metacognitive and self‐regulatory mechanisms. This approach proved effective: the prompts aided participants in their creative process, leading them to develop products that were externally assessed as more creative. The effect size of this improvement was moderate (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref148">24</reflink>]; Lakens, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref149">53</reflink>]), with the differences in product creativity between groups being at <emph>d</emph> = .38 in the second phase, and at <emph>d</emph> = .30 in the final versions. Given the medium effects of traditional, comprehensive creativity trainings demonstrated in meta‐analyses and the high variability between these effects (Haase, Hanel, & Gronau, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref150">37</reflink>]; Karwowski, Zielińska, & Jankowska, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref151">48</reflink>]; Sio & Lortie‐Forgues, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref152">76</reflink>]), the possibility of enhancing people's performance almost comparably well with brief, online prompting appears promising (but see Moreau, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref153">59</reflink>], for a critical perspective on cognitive improvements following brief interventions).</p> <p>Indeed, the subtle and relatively non‐invasive nature of the prompts underscores their potential for broad applicability, e.g., in school or workplace settings. When prompted, participants were encouraged to focus on how they work, monitor their strategies, and adjust them if they see fit. In short, it did not take much to intensify participants' engagement in self‐regulatory processing, thereby enhancing their creative performance. The simplicity of our prompts corresponds well with the main assumptions of psychologically wise interventions (Walton & Crum, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref154">85</reflink>])—a vital alternative to traditional, abilities‐oriented training. Here, we demonstrate that improvements in creative performance can arise from targeting specific, often motivational, mechanisms that initiate and sustain creative efforts. While wise interventions are relatively new to the creativity field, they have already been employed to bolster engagement in real‐life creative activities by strengthening people's perceived agency—their creative confidence and appreciation for creativity (Zielińska, Lebuda, & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref155">95</reflink>]). A promising avenue for future research is to explore how creative self‐perceptions and self‐regulation can be effectively supported in people's creative initiatives.</p> <p>Importantly, our prompting approach seemed universally effective, enhancing performance regardless of the task type participants worked on or the domain it represents (i.e., writing, visual arts, crafting; see SOM Table S3). This observation not only further reinforces the utility of such interventions in varied contexts but also delves into the essence of creative self‐regulation. Although certain regulatory mechanisms may be more or less relevant depending on the domain in which a person operates or even the specific activity they pursue (Kaufman & Baer, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref156">52</reflink>]), the core and overarching structure of creative self‐regulation appears universal and domain‐general. This conclusion aligns with previous findings drawn from correlational data (Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref157">91</reflink>]), and our current study further substantiates its validity using an experimental design.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-27">THE IMPACT OF SELF‐REGULATORY PROMPTS ON AFFECTIVE AND MOTIVATIONAL STATES</hd> <p>Our prompting procedure was designed to activate a range of self‐regulatory mechanisms, encouraging participants to monitor and control their cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and motivational processes (see Table 1). While post‐task measurement of participants' regulatory behavior did not show significant differences between prompted and non‐prompted groups (as discussed in detail in the next section), dynamic measurements of state‐like experiences and time allocation shed light on the processes our intervention indeed altered. Essentially, the prompts were effective in making participants more eager to spend time creating, while simultaneously boosting their enthusiasm. Ultimately, this resulted in more creative outcomes, demonstrating two parallel modes through which our prompts supported performance: via greater engagement manifested in longer time‐on‐task, and a positive, activating mood. We interpret these findings as underscoring the motivational advantages of self‐regulation activation, suggesting that receiving prompts allowed people to sustain efforts and kept them uplifted.</p> <p>On the other hand, both active and passive negative affect, as well as mixed emotions, did not change under the influence of prompts. Nonetheless, these states remained at a relatively low level throughout the task realization (see SOM Figure S3), leaving less room for further attenuation. Moreover, the very nature of prompting focuses more on <emph>mobilizing</emph> certain psychological processes rather than <emph>fading out</emph> others. Alternatively, boosting mixed emotions potentially beneficial for creativity (Fong, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref158">31</reflink>]), e.g., surprise, might be less related to self‐regulatory activity and more to attempts at sparking curiosity (Hagtvedt, Dossinger, Harrison, & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref159">38</reflink>]) or inspiration (Thrash, Maruskin, Cassidy, Fryer, & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref160">79</reflink>]). Targeting these in future interventions, along with self‐regulatory scaffolds, could lead to further improvements in creativity.</p> <p>Finally, no significant differences emerged in participants' confidence to handle the task creatively, irrespective of their exposure to self‐regulatory prompts. Again, this finding might be partly attributed to the ceiling effect, as people were generally quite convinced of their success in the task (see SOM Figure S3). Drawing on the sociocognitive perspective (e.g., Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref161">4</reflink>]), one could argue that it is personal confidence or self‐efficacy that drives effective self‐regulation, rather than being a consequence of it. At the same time, enhancing self‐regulatory engagement or offering helpful task strategies can naturally be expected to bolster confidence, with previous research even interpreting such an effect as a manipulation check for effective strategy inducement (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref162">57</reflink>]). Therefore, although not observed in our study, the relationship between self‐regulation and confidence in creative endeavors appears to be reciprocal. Moreover, people's perceptions and evaluations of their creative processes and outcomes can qualify these links. Future research would benefit from exploring people's metacognitive judgments of their performance (Lebuda & Benedek, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref163">54</reflink>])—likely reinforced by self‐regulation prompts—and their role in shaping creative self‐perceptions.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-28">CHALLENGES IN THE MEASUREMENT OF SELF‐REGULATORY ENGAGEMENT</hd> <p>Quite unexpectedly, our analyses revealed the lack of between‐group differences in participants' regulatory behavior, as indicated by their post‐task self‐assessments (using a CSR questionnaire). On the surface, this null result could be read as a failed manipulation check: the same mechanisms the prompts aimed to enhance were apparently employed similarly by both groups. This is a puzzling finding, especially since the impact of self‐regulatory incentives on measured outcomes was evident, indicating the manipulation was <emph>effective</emph>.</p> <p>Thus, it seems premature to hastily dismiss the influence of prompts on regulatory behavior. Compelling arguments might be drawn from the observed differences in time‐on‐task and positive active emotions induced by the prompts. Firstly, the fact that prompted participants consistently declared feeling happier and more energized could indicate they coped better with various affective states experienced throughout the task. In essence, this suggests they regulated their emotions more effectively. Secondly, the increased time involvement observed in the prompted group suggests a greater effort they put into task performance: perhaps through iterative improvements, assessing the effects, modifying approaches if they did not work, or exploring and elaborating on new ideas when they seemed promising. Although not explicitly, such effortful action underscores participants' regulatory engagement, as effective regulation indeed requires effort (Wang & Lajoie, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref164">86</reflink>]). Thus, while the measures of emotional states and time‐on‐task may not directly map onto the self‐regulation construct (but see Efklides, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref165">30</reflink>]), we argue that they can serve as behavioral markers of participants' regulatory engagement, corroborating the effectiveness of our manipulation in influencing creative self‐regulation.</p> <p>Yet, the question remains of why these effects were not apparent with the CSR questionnaire. One explanation might be rooted in this measure's declarative and introspective nature. It assumes that participants can accurately recall the mechanisms employed during an action (here: the just‐finished creative task), which <emph>per se</emph> is a demanding, effortful, and metacognitively‐driven activity, requiring people to become instantly aware of how the process unfolded. The mental challenge this questionnaire poses is even more pronounced given its <emph>double‐retrospective</emph> design: not only does it ask about a finished action but also it goes back to its different stages, including early, preparatory activities and thoughts. Thus, reconstructing the process and accurately identifying adopted strategies might be challenging. Notably, participants responded to the CSR questionnaire immediately after engaging in a relatively complex, demanding task. Consequently, the mental effort exerted during the task—especially by the experimental group—and the associated cognitive load might interfere with their ability to introspect and respond to the CSR questions attentively. Alternatively, the control group that was not stimulated to reflect on their creative process could demonstrate a retrospective bias and overreport their strategy use. Finally, it is also possible that, although the conditions did not differ in the <emph>intensity</emph> of using the self‐regulatory mechanisms, the prompts encouraged the experimental group to use these mechanisms more <emph>effectively</emph>.</p> <p>However, the CSR questionnaire has been proven valid in previous research, demonstrating various intensities of regulatory engagement among the authors of less‐versus‐more creative projects (Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref166">94</reflink>]) or highlighting the links between self‐regulation and creative activity and achievement (Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref167">91</reflink>]). Therefore, it also seems plausible that the questionnaire was not sensitive enough to detect subtle changes in self‐regulation elicited in an experimental setup. The CSR questionnaire was originally designed to capture regulatory approaches employed during past long‐term activities rather than immediate, just‐completed tasks. Thus, paradoxically, in previous studies where participants were asked to describe or recall a creative activity from quite a distant past (i.e., the last year), the broad, tendency‐like behaviors the questionnaire covers may have aptly described their approaches. In contrast, within a more dynamic experimental context, these statements might be too rough to capture the nuances of participants' immediate regulatory behavior. Of note, our purely exploratory analysis revealed that the groups differed on the key CSR item, reflecting <emph>change</emph> in participants' approaches: <emph>I adjusted the way I worked to best achieve certain goals</emph> (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib328" id="ref168">328</reflink>) = 3.22, <emph>p</emph> = .001, <emph>d</emph> = .35). Thus, despite the omnibus test for CSR dimensions being insignificant, the effects of the prompts on participants' regulatory behavior seem plausible.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-29">LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS</hd> <p>This investigation has several strengths, including a dynamic and experimental study design, a performance‐based creativity measure, and a focus on creative products that require actual implementation rather than just generating an idea. However, apart from its merits, the limitations of this study deserve comment.</p> <p>First, one of our exclusion criteria specifically pertained to the experimental group, leading to slightly different group sizes between conditions. This criterion involved excluding participants who either did not submit any responses to the open‐ended questions or provided only perfunctory placeholders (e.g., "OK", "fine"), which might suggest a higher exclusion rate for less engaged participants in the experimental group. However, we emphasize that this criterion was established and preregistered a priori not to control participants' engagement per se, nor were the exclusions based on a subjective interpretation of participant engagement. Rather, the primary aim was to ensure that the analysis was based on responses aligned with the experimental requirements, which involved providing meaningful responses to the prompts. Furthermore, other criteria for excluding inattentive, disengaged participants were applied across both study conditions. Notably, in the initial baseline measurement (i.e., prior to any prompting), the groups did not differ either in time‐on‐task or positive activating emotions. Given that these factors appear to be indicative of participants' engagement, it further supports the internal validity of our findings.</p> <p>Secondly, given that the prompts supporting the self‐reflection phase were provided after task completion, they could not have contributed to the observed increase in product creativity. Therefore, the positive outcomes of our intervention are attributable solely to the prompts focused on the forethought and performance phases. Considering the post‐activity context of the self‐reflection phase, determining any creativity‐boosting effects of improving approach and encouraging participants to find readiness to share their effects necessitates a different study design. This might involve asking participants to assess the possibility of future creative engagement (see Zielińska et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref169">91</reflink>]) or inviting them to participate in a subsequent creativity task.</p> <p>Lastly, while the tasks in this study were designed to mobilize creative processes beyond mere ideation—requiring participants to implement their ideas and produce a tangible result—they were still relatively short. As the role of self‐regulatory mechanisms becomes more pronounced during long‐term creative actions, which heavily depend on maintaining effort effectively and adjusting strategies (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref170">41</reflink>]), the question of how the prompts support such prolonged, resource‐intensive activities needs to be addressed. Most importantly, we see a great need for studies conducted in more ecologically valid settings, targeting self‐initiated creative activities, both professional and everyday‐like. The present study might inspire such endeavors and set the stage for longer‐term interventions supporting creative self‐regulation during real‐life creative actions.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-30">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This preregistered experiment demonstrated that self‐regulatory prompts delivered during the creative activity improve the quality of the products eventually developed. Therefore, it extends previous works that mostly explored the possibility of supporting divergent thinking processes by strategy induction. Although the prompts were brief and simple (open‐ended questions inviting participants to reflect on their next steps to consider), they went beyond cognitive strategies alone and activated motivational and metacognitive processes. Notably, the positive effect of the prompts observed in this study was fully mediated by time spent on task and positive active emotions. Thus, not only were people who reflected on their next steps more engaged and persistent but they also found themselves more enthusiastic while working on creative tasks. Overall, these findings hold the potential to inspire new interventional research on how to stimulate the creative process most effectively, not only by using cognitive techniques but also by supporting self‐regulation.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-31">ACKNOWLEDGEMENT</hd> <p>This study was possible thanks to a grant from the National Science Centre Poland (2022/45/N/HS6/00625). Izabela Lebuda was supported by funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska‐Curie grant agreement No 896518.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-32">CONFLICT OF INTEREST</hd> <p>The authors declare no known conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-33">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data and scripts are available for reanalysis in the Open Science Framework [OSF] repository: https://osf.io/pg7d8.</p> <hd id="AN0186883847-34">A APPENDIX</hd> <p>The instructions for the three creativity tasks used in the study: (a) designing a logo, (b) writing a short story, and (c) making a greeting card.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><p>In this part of the study, we would like you to:</p><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Design a logo—a graphical symbol for a brand that you come up with. You can think of any brand in any industry. Along with the logo you design, include the company name and a brief description of what it does. You can use computer programs (e.g., MS Paint, PowerPoint) or draw with a pencil or pen on a piece of paper.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Write a short story (maximum two A4 pages) on any topic. You can use computer programs (e.g., Notepad, Word) or write on a piece of paper.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Prepare a greeting card for a chosen person. The card can be related to any event, occasion, or holiday. The recipient can be anyone who comes to your mind. Include a brief description of the occasion for which the card is intended and specify the recipient. You can use computer programs (e.g., MS Paint, PowerPoint) or draw with a pencil or pen on a piece of paper.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Try your best to prepare something that is creative: something that can be perceived by others as unique, interesting, and valuable.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">You have a total of 30 minutes to work on this task.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1. Summary of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for task‐related emotions across subsequent measurements: Four‐factor solution.Table S2. Summary of multilevel models for all variables of interest.Table S3. Summary of two‐way mixed ANOVAs with condition and task type as between‐subject factors for all variables of interest.Table S4. Summary of multilevel models testing creative activity, creative achievement, trait‐like self‐regulation, creative self‐concept, and creative mindsets, as potential moderators of the observed prompt effect.Figure S1. The examples of participants' products—Logos and greeting cards—representing different levels of judges‐assessed creativity.Figure S2. Parallel analysis for task‐related emotions across subsequent measurements: scree plots.Figure S3. Changes in dynamic creative confidence, negative active, negative passive, and mixed emotions across task duration in prompted and non‐prompted.</p> <ref id="AN0186883847-35"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref67" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> We chose a parallel mediation model over separate single mediator models to provide a more comprehensive picture. Moreover, the mediators—positive active emotions and time‐on‐task from the second measurement (further justification provided later in the text)—were uncorrelated: <emph>r</emph> = −.04, <emph>p</emph> = .523. In turn, the findings from separate single mediator models mirrored the results presented here.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref65" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> In the case of positive active emotions, we initially considered incorporating results from the second (or third) measurement as a mediator while concurrently controlling for the first measurement's results. This strategy would aim to determine whether changes in affect induced by prompts were responsible for changes in creative performance. However, given the high correlation observed between the first and second measurements (<emph>r</emph> = .85, <emph>p</emph> < .001), the change in positive active emotions was tiny. This negligible change compromises our ability to detect any indirect effects. Therefore, our analysis only included the second measurement, rather than attempting to estimate a change in positive active emotions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref31" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> To further validate the proposed indirect effects, we replicated our analyses within a multilevel data framework. Specifically, we ran model‐based causal mediation analyses using the <emph>mediate</emph> function from the <emph>mediation</emph> package (Tingley, Yamamoto, Hirose, Keele, & Imai, [80]). This method contrasts the mediator model, where a mediator (i.e., positive active emotions, time‐on‐task) is regressed on a predictor (i.e., condition), with the outcome model, where the outcome is regressed on both the predictor and mediator. Consequently, the Average Causal Mediation Effect (ACME) and Average Direct Effect (ADE), representing indirect and direct effects respectively, are calculated. Quasi‐Bayesian Monte Carlo simulation is employed for confidence interval estimation. A key advantage of this method is that it uses all data across all measurement occasions, controlling for their hierarchical structure (we included random intercepts for participants). However, it does not reflect the specific temporal precedence of the variables, as proposed in our focal analyses. Therefore, we present it as a supplementary validity check. Notably, the indirect effects observed using this additional analytical strategy echo the findings presented in the main text. Self‐regulatory prompts led to greater product creativity through elevated positive active emotions (ACME = .05, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [.01,.09], <emph>p</emph> = .004). There was also a significant indirect effect through time‐on‐task (ACME = .04, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [.02,.07], <emph>p</emph> = .002).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref161" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Consistent with our preregistered protocol, we also investigated if participants' individual characteristics, including creative activity, creative achievement, trait‐like self‐regulation, creative self‐concept, and creative mindsets, moderate the observed prompt effect. However, our analysis revealed no significant effects. These results are detailed in SOM Table S4.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186883847-36"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Acar, S., Runco, M.A., & Park, H. (2020). What should people be told when they take a divergent thinking test? A meta‐analytic review of explicit instructions for divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14, 39 – 49 ; doi: 10.1037/aca0000256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ashman, G., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). Problem‐solving or explicit instruction: Which should go first when element interactivity is high? Educational Psychology Review, 32, 229 – 247 ; doi: 10.1007/s10648‐019‐09500‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bai, H., Mulder, H., Moerbeek, M., Kroesbergen, E.H., & Leseman, P.P.M. (2021). Divergent thinking in four‐year‐old children: An analysis of thinking processes in performing the alternative uses task. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100814 ; doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100814.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY : W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref98" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1 – 26 ; doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref99" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 130 – 136 ; doi: 10.1177/1745691617699280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref75" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829 – 835 ; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref80" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self‐regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40, 193 – 211 ; doi: 10.1007/s11251‐011‐9167‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref114" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett, L.F., & Russell, J.A. (1999). The structure of current affect: Controversies and emerging consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 10 – 14 ; doi: 10.1111/1467‐8721.00003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed‐effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1 – 48 ; doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaty, R.E., Benedek, M., Barry Kaufman, S., & Silvia, P.J. (2015). Default and executive network coupling supports creative idea production. Scientific Reports, 5, 10964 ; doi: 10.1038/srep10964.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaty, R.E., & Silvia, P.J. (2012). Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent thinking tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 309 – 319 ; doi: 10.1037/a0029171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaty, R.E., Silvia, P.J., Nusbaum, E.C., Jauk, E., & Benedek, M. (2014). The roles of associative and executive processes in creative cognition. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1186 – 1197 ; doi: 10.3758/s13421‐014‐0428‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beghetto, R.A. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15, 6 – 23 ; doi: 10.1891/1945‐8959.15.1.6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beghetto, R.A. (2023). Uncertainty as a lever for change and innovation. In D.D. Preiss, M. Singer, & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), Creativity, innovation, and change across cultures (pp. 413 – 437). London : Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature ; doi: 10.1007/978‐3‐031‐28206‐5_16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benedek, M., Franz, F., Heene, M., & Neubauer, A.C. (2012). Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 53 (4), 480 – 485 ; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benedek, M., & Jauk, E. (2018). Spontaneous and controlled processes in creative cognition. In K. Christoff & K.C.R. Fox (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of spontaneous thought: Mind‐wandering, creativity, and dreaming (Vol. 1, pp. 285 – 298). New York, NY : Oxford University Press ; doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190464745.013.22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564 – 577 ; doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Birdi, K.S. (2005). No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 102 – 111 ; doi: 10.1108/03090590510585073.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blair, C., & Ku, S. (2022). A hierarchical integrated model of self‐regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 725828 ; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.725828.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callan, G.L., Rubenstein, L.D., Ridgley, L.M., & McCall, J.R. (2019). Measuring self‐regulated learning during creative problem‐solving with SRL microanalysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15, 136 – 148 ; doi: 10.1037/aca0000238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A., Dmitrieva, J., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2005). Effects of explicit instruction to "be creative" across domains and cultures. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 89 – 110 ; doi: 10.1002/j.2162‐6057.2005.tb01252.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, P., Powers, J.T., Katragadda, K.R., Cohen, G.L., & Dweck, C.S. (2020). A strategic mindset: An orientation toward strategic behavior during goal pursuit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117, 14066 – 14072 ; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2002529117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155 – 159 ; doi: 10.1037//0033‐2909.112.1.155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daumiller, M., & Dresel, M. (2019). Supporting self‐regulated learning with digital media using motivational regulation and metacognitive prompts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87, 161 – 176 ; doi: 10.1080/00220973.2018.1448744.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Chantal, P.‐L., Zielińska, A., Lebuda, I., & Karwowski, M. (2023). How do examples impact divergent thinking? The interplay between associative and executive processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication.; doi: 10.1037/aca0000613.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Dreu, C.K.W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B.A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood‐creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739 – 756 ; doi: 10.1037/0022‐3514.94.5.739.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Mascio, R., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2018). The effect of wording and placement of task instructions on problem‐solving creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, 335 – 353 ; doi: 10.1002/jocb.157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dygert, S.K.C., & Jarosz, A.F. (2020). Individual differences in creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1249 – 1274 ; doi: 10.1037/xge0000713.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self‐regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6 – 25 ; doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fong, C.T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1016 – 1030 ; doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.22798182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forthmann, B., Wilken, A., Doebler, P., & Holling, H. (2019). Strategy induction enhances creativity in figural divergent thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53, 18 – 29 ; doi: 10.1002/jocb.159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frith, E., Kane, M.J., Welhaf, M.S., Christensen, A.P., Silvia, P.J., & Beaty, R.E. (2021). Keeping creativity under control: Contributions of attention control and fluid intelligence to divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 33, 138 – 157 ; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2020.1855906.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerwig, A., Miroshnik, K., Forthmann, B., Benedek, M., Karwowski, M., & Holling, H. (2021). The relationship between intelligence and divergent thinking—A meta‐analytic update. Journal of Intelligence, 9, 23 ; doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilhooly, K.J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S.H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 611 – 625 ; doi: 10.1111/j.2044‐8295.2007.tb00467.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gong, Z., Miao, K., Liu, X., Luo, M., Yu, Y., & Chen, Z. (2023). A positive association between working memory capacity and human creativity: A meta‐analytic evidence. Journal of Intelligence, 11, 15 ; doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11010015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haase, J., Hanel, P.H.P., & Gronau, N. (2023). Creativity enhancement methods for adults: A meta‐analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication; doi: 10.1037/aca0000557.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagtvedt, L.P., Dossinger, K., Harrison, S.H., & Huang, L. (2019). Curiosity made the cat more creative: Specific curiosity as a driver of creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 1 – 13 ; doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.10.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L.‐T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1 – 55 ; doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivcevic, Z., Grossman, E.R., Cotter, K.N., & Nusbaum, E. (2023). Self‐regulation of creativity: Toward measuring strategies of creative action. Creativity Research Journal, 1 – 17 ; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2226494.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivcevic, Z., & Nusbaum, E. (2017). From having an idea to doing something with it: Self‐regulation for creativity. In M. Karwowski & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self‐efficacy, mindset, and identity (pp. 343 – 365). San Diego, CA : Academic Press ; doi: 10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐809790‐8.00020‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jansen, R.S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Jak, S., & Kester, L. (2019). Self‐regulated learning partially mediates the effect of self‐regulated learning interventions on achievement in higher education: A meta‐analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100292 ; doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100292.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jia, X., Xu, T., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The role of metacognitive strategy monitoring and control in the relationship between creative mindsets and divergent thinking performance. Journal of Intelligence, 10, 35 ; doi: 10.3390/jintelligence10020035.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self‐regulation, and self‐regulated learning: What's the purpose? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 477 – 484 ; doi: 10.1007/s10648‐008‐9087‐2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self‐regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23 – 52 ; doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R.A. (2019). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13, 402 – 415 ; doi: 10.1037/aca0000190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski, M., Han, M.‐H., & Beghetto, R.A. (2019). Toward dynamizing the measurement of creative confidence beliefs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13, 193 – 202 ; doi: 10.1037/aca0000229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski, M., Zielińska, A., & Jankowska, D.M. (2022). Democratizing creativity by enhancing imagery and agency: A review and meta‐analysis. Review of Research in Education, 46, 229 – 263 ; doi: 10.3102/0091732X221084337.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kassambara, A. (2023). _rstatix: Pipe‐friendly framework for basic statistical tests. R Package Version 0.7.2. Available from: https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=rstatix.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kauffman, D.F. (2004). Self‐regulated learning in web‐based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139 – 161 ; doi: 10.2190/AX2D‐Y9VM‐V7PX‐0TAD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kauffman, D.F., Zhao, R., & Yang, Y.‐S. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and self‐monitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance self‐regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 313 – 322 ; doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.04.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J.C., & Baer, J. (2005). The amusement park theory of creativity. In J.C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 321 – 328). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ; doi: 10.4324/9781410611925.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t‐tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863 ; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lebuda, I., & Benedek, M. (2023). A systematic framework of creative metacognition. Physics of Life Reviews, 46, 161 – 181 ; doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2023.07.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, L., Bannert, M., Van Der Graaf, J., Singh, S., Fan, Y., Surendrannair, S., ... & Gašević, D. (2023). Effects of real‐time analytics‐based personalized scaffolds on students' self‐regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107547 ; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107547.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, S., Ivcevic, Z., Kashdan, T.B., & Kaufman, S.B. (2024). Curious and persistent, but not consistent: Self‐regulation traits and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication; doi: 10.1002/jocb.638.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self‐efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241 – 251 ; doi: 10.1037/0021‐9010.69.2.241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long, H., & Pang, W. (2015). Rater effects in creativity assessment: A mixed methods investigation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 15, 13 – 25 ; doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.10.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moreau, D. (2022). How malleable are cognitive abilities? A critical perspective on popular brief interventions. American Psychologist, 77, 409 – 423 ; doi: 10.1037/amp0000872.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller, N.M., & Seufert, T. (2018). Effects of self‐regulation prompts in hypermedia learning on learning performance and self‐efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 58, 1 – 11 ; doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nijstad, B.A., De Dreu, C.K.W., Rietzschel, E.F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 34 – 77 ; doi: 10.1080/10463281003765323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niu, W., & Liu, D. (2009). Enhancing creativity: A comparison between effects of an indicative instruction "to be creative" and a more elaborate heuristic instruction on Chinese student creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 93 – 98 ; doi: 10.1037/a0013660.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nusbaum, E.C., & Silvia, P.J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39, 36 – 45 ; doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nusbaum, E.C., Silvia, P.J., & Beaty, R.E. (2014). Ready, set, create: What instructing people to "be creative" reveals about the meaning and mechanisms of divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 423 – 432 ; doi: 10.1037/a0036549.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, X., & Yu, H. (2018). Different effects of cognitive shifting and intelligence on creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, 212 – 225 ; doi: 10.1002/jocb.144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reigeluth, C.M., & Stein, F.S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional‐design theory (pp. 335 – 382). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Revelle, W. (2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R Package Version 2.3.6. Available from: https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=psych.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rominger, C., Papousek, I., Perchtold, C.M., Weber, B., Weiss, E.M., & Fink, A. (2018). The creative brain in the figural domain: Distinct patterns of EEG alpha power during idea generation and idea elaboration. Neuropsychologia, 118, 13 – 19 ; doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.02.013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosen, D.S., Oh, Y., Erickson, B., Zhang, F.(Z.), Kim, Y.E., & Kounios, J. (2020). Dual‐process contributions to creativity in jazz improvisations: An SPM‐EEG study. NeuroImage, 213, 116632 ; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116632.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1 – 36 ; doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubenstein, L.D., Callan, G.L., & Ridgley, L.M. (2018). Anchoring the creative process within a self‐regulated learning framework: Inspiring assessment methods and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 921 – 945 ; doi: 10.1007/s10648‐017‐9431‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubenstein, L.D., Callan, G.L., Ridgley, L.M., & Henderson, A. (2019). Students' strategic planning and strategy use during creative problem solving: The importance of perspective‐taking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34, 100556 ; doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubenstein, L.D., Callan, G.L., Speirs Neumeister, K., Ridgley, L.M., & Hernández Finch, M. (2020). How problem identification strategies influence creativity outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101840 ; doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101840.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, G., Leritz, L.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361 – 388 ; doi: 10.1080/10400410409534549.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvia, P.J. (2018). Creativity is undefinable, controllable, and everywhere. In R.J. Sternberg & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (1st edn, pp. 291 – 301). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press ; doi: 10.1017/9781108185936.021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sio, U.N., & Lortie‐Forgues, H. (2024). The impact of creativity training on creative performance: A meta‐analytic review and critical evaluation of 5 decades of creativity training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 150, 554 – 585. Advance online publication; doi: 10.1037/bul0000432.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, C.L., Kaufman, J.C., & Barbot, B. (2021). Measuring creative writing with the storyboard task: The role of effort and story length. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55, 476 – 488 ; doi: 10.1002/jocb.467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theobald, M. (2021). Self‐regulated learning training programs enhance university students' academic performance, self‐regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta‐analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66, 101976 ; doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101976.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thrash, T.M., Maruskin, L.A., Cassidy, S.E., Fryer, J.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2010). Mediating between the muse and the masses: Inspiration and the actualization of creative ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 469 – 487 ; doi: 10.1037/a0017907.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59, 1 – 38. Available from: <ulink href="http://www.jstatsoft.org/v59/i05/">http://www.jstatsoft.org/v59/i05/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolkamp, G., Verwaeren, B., Vriend, T., Riekhoff, A.‐J., & Nijstad, B. (2023). Creativity as it unfolds: An examination of temporality in the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 1 – 22 ; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2234719.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urban, M., & Urban, K. (2024). Does metacognition matter in creative problem‐solving? A mixed‐methods analysis of writing. Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication; doi: 10.1002/jocb.630.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valgeirsdottir, D., & Onarheim, B. (2017). Studying creativity training programs: A methodological analysis. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26, 430 – 439 ; doi: 10.1111/caim.12245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veenman, M.V.J. (2016). Learning to self‐monitor and self‐regulate. In Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd edn, pp. 233 – 257). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, G.M., & Crum, A. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of wise interventions: How social psychology can help people change. New York, NY : The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, T., & Lajoie, S.P. (2023). How does cognitive load interact with self‐regulated learning? A dynamic and integrative model. Educational Psychology Review, 35, 69 ; doi: 10.1007/s10648‐023‐09794‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, T.L., Schweiger Gallo, I., Miles, E., Gollwitzer, P.M., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Effective regulation of affect: An action control perspective on emotion regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 143 – 186 ; doi: 10.1080/10463283.2012.718134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilken, A., Forthmann, B., & Holling, H. (2020). Instructions moderate the relationship between creative performance in figural divergent thinking and reasoning capacity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54, 582 – 597 ; doi: 10.1002/jocb.392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winne, P.H., & Hadwin, A.F. (1998). Studying as self‐regulated learning. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277 – 304). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabelina, D.L., Friedman, N.P., & Andrews‐Hanna, J. (2019). Unity and diversity of executive functions in creativity. Consciousness and Cognition, 68, 47 – 56 ; doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2018.12.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zielińska, A., Forthmann, B., Lebuda, I., & Karwowski, M. (2023). Self‐regulation for creative activity: The same or different across domains? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Advance online publication; doi: 10.1037/aca0000540.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zielińska, A., & Karwowski, M. (2021). Living with uncertainty in creative process: A self‐regulatory perspective. In R.A. Beghetto & G.J. Jaeger (Eds.), Uncertainty: A catalyst for creativity, learning and development. Cham : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zielińska, A., Lebuda, I., Gop, A., & Karwowski, M. (2024). Teachers as creative agents: How self‐beliefs and self‐regulation drive teachers' creative activity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 77, 102267 ; doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zielińska, A., Lebuda, I., Ivcevic, Z., & Karwowski, M. (2022). How adolescents develop and implement their ideas? On self‐regulation of creative action. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 100998 ; doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.100998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zielińska, A., Lebuda, I., & Karwowski, M. (2022). Simple, yet wise? Students' creative engagement benefits from a daily intervention. Translational Issues in Psychological Sciences, 8, 6 – 23 ; doi: 10.1037/tps0000289.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self‐regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation (pp. 13 – 39). San Diego, CA : Academic Press ; doi: 10.1016/B978‐012109890‐2/50031‐7.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Aleksandra Zielińska; Izabela Lebuda; Marta Czerwonka and Maciej Karwowski</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib328" firstref="ref168"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1461973
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Self-Regulation Prompts Improve Creative Performance
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aleksandra+Zielinska%22">Aleksandra Zielinska</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1476-9828">0000-0002-1476-9828</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Izabela+Lebuda%22">Izabela Lebuda</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4715-1928">0000-0002-4715-1928</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marta+Czerwonka%22">Marta Czerwonka</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8247-3749">0000-0001-8247-3749</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maciej+Karwowski%22">Maciej Karwowski</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6974-1673">0000-0001-6974-1673</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. 2025 59(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Control%22">Self Control</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prompting%22">Prompting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Task+Analysis%22">Task Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Advertising%22">Advertising</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Writing%22">Creative Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literary+Genres%22">Literary Genres</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Commercial+Art%22">Commercial Art</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Concept+Formation%22">Concept Formation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.674
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175<br />2162-6057
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: While people approach creative actions in diverse ways, navigating them effectively requires self-regulatory effort. In this preregistered experiment, we examined whether simple self-regulation prompts, provided across the stages of the creative process, make the outcomes more creative. Participants (N = 332) engaged in one of three creativity tasks--designing a logo, writing a short story, or preparing a greeting card--and documented their ongoing progress with photos. During the task, half of the participants received prompts tailored to their task progress, encouraging the employment of various self-regulatory mechanisms (e.g., uncertainty acceptance, adjusting approach). Consistent with our predictions, promoting a strategic approach throughout the task led participants to develop more creative products than those in the no-prompt condition. Moreover, we demonstrated two indirect paths behind the prompts' effectiveness: first, via enhancing positive active emotions, and second, through fostering a greater time commitment to the task. On a theoretical level, the proposed prompting approach highlights the advantages of self-regulatory engagement during creative actions beyond solely idea generation strategies. Methodologically, our study underscores the simplicity of such interventions and their potential broad applicability.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://osf.io/pg7d8
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1461973
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461973
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.674
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Self Control
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prompting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Task Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Advertising
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literary Genres
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Commercial Art
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Concept Formation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Self-Regulation Prompts Improve Creative Performance
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aleksandra Zielinska
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Izabela Lebuda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marta Czerwonka
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maciej Karwowski
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-6057
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1