View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Creativity and Attention Control: An Individual Difference Approach

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Creativity and Attention Control: An Individual Difference Approach
Language: English
Authors: Beatrice N. Ruiz (ORCID 0000-0002-5825-165X), Lemira V. Esparza, Jeffery R. Mock, Thomas R. Coyle, Edward J. Golob
Source: Creativity Research Journal. 2025 37(3):406-426.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Attention, Attention Control, Auditory Discrimination, Creativity, Creative Thinking, College Students, Correlation, Stimuli, Individual Differences
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2291631
ISSN: 1040-0419
1532-6934
Abstract: Prior work suggests that attention is related to creativity, in large part because creative individuals are more likely to attend to and remember irrelevant auditory information. However, the specific role of attention in those studies is unclear because the results may reflect memory processes rather than attention. In two experiments, we used a dichotic listening task to experimentally manipulate attention control (focused, divided) without memory demands. Analyses tested whether individual differences in dichotic listening performance covaried with creative achievement and creative performance on lab-based tests. Results from both studies showed that misperceptions in the dichotic listening tasks were negatively related to creative performance, with mixed results for their relations to creative achievement. There was also a negative relationship between the ability to focus attention and divergent thinking. We speculate that misperceptions may index periods of attentional lapses, which are also likely to limit creativity. Additionally, focused attention may hinder divergent thinking. Taken together, the findings suggest that individual differences in attention control contribute to performance on lab-based creativity tests.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1493560
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGa91ilSWliPIPtVDW21056AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCjYgjyOm6Ep5PcFeQIBEICBm9utCCewpBPaKbqEZ85xefcRlhGWbP-GtMIyuwUT8HJDdlVnLb8JUywdIsKqq7Sp8P4OhfKEreM7zC_KQn1JxNr5shNvYsE-s4wVVS4uQVU9zrmlgVdJgsJrWaEWE3KRZyKEXLbOsM4ptpFlyWaQpAbWybsX83KynONC2_vGBKxcj81ixBe_zHHljewEip6b0bsFjdSvvxuW40nB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186774304;7lo01jul.25;2025Jul23.02:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186774304-1">Creativity and Attention Control: An Individual Difference Approach </title> <sbt id="AN0186774304-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Prior work suggests that attention is related to creativity, in large part because creative individuals are more likely to attend to and remember irrelevant auditory information. However, the specific role of attention in those studies is unclear because the results may reflect memory processes rather than attention. In two experiments, we used a dichotic listening task to experimentally manipulate attention control (focused, divided) without memory demands. Analyses tested whether individual differences in dichotic listening performance covaried with creative achievement and creative performance on lab-based tests. Results from both studies showed that misperceptions in the dichotic listening tasks were negatively related to creative performance, with mixed results for their relations to creative achievement. There was also a negative relationship between the ability to focus attention and divergent thinking. We speculate that misperceptions may index periods of attentional lapses, which are also likely to limit creativity. Additionally, focused attention may hinder divergent thinking. Taken together, the findings suggest that individual differences in attention control contribute to performance on lab-based creativity tests.</p> <p>Human creativity is a source of profound satisfaction and enjoyment to many and is a potent driver of economic success for individuals and societies (Florida, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref1">39</reflink>]; Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref2">80</reflink>]). The topic of creativity is well-positioned to advance the ambitious goal of uniting the sciences and humanities. Termed "consilience" (Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref3">107</reflink>]), this approach places creativity within humanities such as the arts, literature, architecture, and music while also being an expression of cognitive science that is ultimately rooted in biology. The current project takes a hypothesis-driven approach to examine links between creativity and one aspect of cognitive science – attention.</p> <p>The term "creativity" is conceptualized in multiple ways, but all center around the generation of ideas that are new and useful (Runco & Acar, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref4">86</reflink>]). Creativity has been studied from an individual difference's paradigm (see Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref5">56</reflink>] for review). The modern scientific study of creativity has its origin in the 20<sups>th</sups> century when scientists debated whether creativity was distinct from intelligence. If they were the same construct, then individual differences in intelligence should fully account for individual differences in creativity. In 1965, Wallach and Kogan used a game like atmosphere to test student's creativity. Individual differences in creativity measures were not fully accounted for by their intelligence, demonstrating that creativity was indeed distinct from intelligence.</p> <p>Other studies have investigated how individuals vary in their creative ability and what covaries with these individual differences. For example, several studies have found individual differences in neural functional connectivity in the brains of high compared to low creative individuals (Beaty, Benedek, Barry Kaufman, & Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]; Beaty, Nusbaum, & Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>]; Beaty, Seli, & Schacter, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]). Additionally, individual differences in attentional biases during the Narvon's Global-Local letter task (i.e., preferring to attend to global rather than local levels of information) were found to predict flexible divergent thinking (Zmigrod, Zmigrod, & Hommel, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref9">113</reflink>]). Furnham, Batey, Booth, Patel, and Lozinskaya ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]) found that differences in university degree programs (arts or science) could predict individual difference in divergent thinking fluency, self-rated creativity, and creative achievement. Lastly, individual differences in the Big-Five personality factor of "openness to experience" are routinely shown to predict creativity (Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref11">57</reflink>]; Kaufman et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref12">59</reflink>]; Puryear, Kettler, & Rinn, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref13">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>The strategy of the present study is to test for potential roles of attention in the creative process by examining individual differences in attention test performance, and determining if they systematically relate to individual differences in creativity test performance and creative achievements in life. This approach uses naturally occurring individual differences to test nomothetic theories, and bridges experimental and differential traditions in psychology (Cronbach, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>]; Kosslyn et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref15">61</reflink>]; Underwood, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref16">101</reflink>]).</p> <p>Creativity in daily life is usually distinguished from exceptional creativity such as Einstein's general theory of relativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref17">58</reflink>]; Merrotsy, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref18">72</reflink>]; Steain, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref19">97</reflink>]). We will focus on individual differences in creative achievement in daily life and creative performance in laboratory creativity tests. Creative achievement tallies an individual's accomplishments on a time scale of years in creative outlets such as the arts, music, theater, and inventions (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]; Holland & Astin, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref21">50</reflink>]). Creative performance, in contrast, is measured from participant behavior in the laboratory on time scales of minutes. Laboratory measures of creative performance can be geared to assess divergent or convergent thinking, though there are elements of both in some tasks (Cortes, Weinberger, Daker, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]). Tests of divergent thinking ask participants to supply many different answers to an open-ended question, such as various ways to use a brick (Mumford, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref23">73</reflink>]; Runco, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref24">85</reflink>]). In convergent thinking tests, participants try to generate correct, but unconventional, answers to solve a problem.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-3">Creativity and attention</hd> <p>Attention is thought to be a core element of higher-level cognition, which includes topics such as creativity, intelligence, reasoning, problem solving, and decision making (Baddeley, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]; Barr, Pennycook, Stolz, & Fugelsang, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]; Diamond, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]; Zmigrod, Zmigrod, & Hommel, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref28">114</reflink>]); all of which are commonly studied by examining individual differences. The intelligence literature provides a useful guide for creativity research because multiple roles of attention are well-established for intelligence, and, as described above, intelligence is an important element of creativity (Batey, Furnham, & Safiullina, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]; Jauk, Benedek, & Neubauer, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref30">53</reflink>]; Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref31">91</reflink>]; Stankov, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref32">96</reflink>]). Aspects of attention that are consistently related to intelligence include sustained attention or vigilance, attention control and task switching, and inhibition (Schweizer, Moosbrugger, & Goldhammer, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref33">89</reflink>]; Stankov, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref34">96</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to the intelligence literature, there is another body of research on the role of attention in creativity. Creativity can be thought of as a process that has several recursive stages, and attention may have diverse roles depending on the specific stage. Wallas proposed an influential model that has four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification (Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref35">66</reflink>]; Wallas, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref36">105</reflink>]). In the preparation stage, relevant information on the problem is gathered. In the next stage, incubation, conscious attention is directed away from the problem. When a sudden insight occurs, this indicates the illumination stage. The last stage, verification, spurs the individual to test their insight.</p> <p>To estimate creative abilities in a limited amount of time, laboratory creativity tests usually do not include an incubation period. This approach is conducive to using a two-stage model that consists of a generative phase, in which multiple ideas are generated, and an evaluative phase for critical assessment and refinement of the best ideas (Sawyer, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref37">87</reflink>]). The present study will work from the two-stage model because the laboratory tests did not include an incubation period. It is important to recognize the possibility that in both the two-stage and four-stage models, certain stages may benefit from more disengaged attention, such as the preparation or generation stages, while a more focused use of attention may benefit stages such as verification and evaluation of ideas. One potential consequence is that theory-building from laboratory tasks without an incubation period may place less emphasis on the role of switching attention to a different task, relative to its potential role in real-world creativity. The likelihood that attention has multiple roles in creativity is echoed by work showing that states of less focused or more variable attention, such as mind wandering and spontaneous thought, as well as focused attention in goal-directed tasks both have correlations to various creativity metrics (Christoff, Irving, Fox, Nathan Spreng, & Andrews-Hanna, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]; Zabelina, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref39">110</reflink>]).</p> <p>The roles of attention may also differ when measuring creative achievements in the real world vs. laboratory-based creativity tests (Zabelina, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref40">110</reflink>]). Zabelina ([<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref41">110</reflink>]) proposed the Model of Creativity and Attention (MOCA) to organize potential relations between attention control and creativity. The model considers instances where less focused, or "leaky," attention may promote creativity, and other contexts where greater creativity would be associated with superior focused attention. Leaky attention may allow the person to attend to more stimuli, which allows them to have "more material to work with" when engaged in a creative endeavor. Another possible relation between creativity and attention is that creativity relies on the ability to flexibly control attention. Flexible attention control includes rapid shifts of attention and adjusting leaky or focused attention to best fit a given stage of creativity. MOCA also distinguishes between real-world creative achievement and performance on laboratory creativity tests, specifically divergent thinking measures, which may differentially rely on leaky and focused attention, respectively. The present study further tests the MOCA modal by assessing whether greater focused attention relates to divergent thinking, while lower focused attention relates to creative achievement.</p> <p>The idea that individual differences in creativity are related to less focused (leaky) attention can be examined in tasks where only a subset of information experienced by the participant is relevant to the task goal. Leaky attention is evident when irrelevant information has a substantial impact on performance. One study along these lines used the Navon task, where small letters are grouped to form the shape of a larger letter (Zabelina, Saporta, & Beeman, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref42">112</reflink>]). For example, a set of small letter "E's" (local level) can be arranged to form the shape of a larger S (global level). On each trial participants were cued to attend to either the local or global levels. Participants higher on real-world creative achievement responded faster when both levels were the same letter, relative to when the levels were different letters. This suggests that high creative achievers attended well to both levels, even when cued to only one level, and supports the idea that better creative achievers in the real world tend to have less focused attention.</p> <p>Earlier studies investigated whether creative individuals, as defined by laboratory test performance, have less focused (leaky) attention. The basic approach delivered irrelevant background stimuli while participants completed a primary task. The main question is whether individual differences in creativity are associated with better processing of the irrelevant information. Mendelsohn and Griswold ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref43">70</reflink>]) asked participants to read and memorize a set of words while irrelevant speech played in the background. Participants then moved on to a presumably unrelated anagram task. A third of the solutions appeared on the memorized list, another third appeared in the previous irrelevant speech, and the last third appeared in neither (control anagrams). A highly creative group, measured by the Remote Associates Test, was more likely to solve anagrams matching irrelevant speech than moderate and low creative groups. The three creativity groups were equally competent at solving anagrams that matched the memorized or control words. In a similar study, Ansburg and Hill ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>]) found a significant correlation between performance on anagrams solved by the irrelevant speech and performance on the Remote Associates Test. The Mendelsohn and Griswold ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref45">70</reflink>]) and Ansburg and Hill ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>]) reports suggest that individuals better at convergent creativity have low focused attention. The relationship between low focused attention and convergent creativity measures are not accounted for in MOCA.</p> <p>However, there are alternative explanations that could explain Mendelsohn and Griswold's ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref47">70</reflink>]) and Ansburg and Hill's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]) findings. One possibility is that participants in the high creativity groups are more likely to store irrelevant information in memory. Related work on latent inhibition, which indexes memory of reduced attention to familiar stimuli (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]; Kéri, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref50">60</reflink>]; Lubow, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref51">67</reflink>]), has shown that lower levels of latent inhibition are associated with higher levels of creative achievement (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]; Kéri, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref53">60</reflink>]). Reductions in latent inhibition are also related to the Big-five personality factor "openness to experience" (Peterson, Smith, & Carson, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref54">79</reflink>]), which is positively correlated to creativity (Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, & O'connor, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref55">92</reflink>]). A second possibility is that people in the high creativity groups are more likely to strategically use the irrelevant information in memory when solving the anagrams, either implicitly or after gaining insight into the relationship between the memorization and anagram tasks. Given that attention and memory are interrelated (Cowan, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]), particularly when performing the above working memory tasks, it is unclear how to interpret these findings in terms of the role(s) of attention.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-4">Dichotic listening to study attention control</hd> <p>There are many attention tasks that do not also impose substantial memory demands, such as visual search (Treisman & Gelade, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref57">100</reflink>]), spatial cueing (Posner, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref58">81</reflink>]), and dichotic listening (Hugdahl, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref59">51</reflink>]). The present experiments used a dichotic listening task for two reasons. First, dichotic listening tasks permit well-validated manipulations of selective and divided attention control (Hugdahl, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref60">51</reflink>]). Second, the differences in the high creative groups of Mendelsohn and Griswold ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref61">70</reflink>]) and Ansburg and Hill ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]) centered on using auditory (speech) information. In dichotic listening, two different auditory stimuli are presented simultaneously with one stimulus to each ear using insert earphones or headphones. The most common variation is to ask participants to make a perceptual judgment about what they heard, such as reporting the consonant-vowel that they heard best. Attention selection is controlled by task instructions. For example, in the divided attention condition participants attend to both ears but in the focused attention condition they attend to only one of the two ears. In the divided condition, the consonant-vowels presented to the right ear is reported about 50% more often than the one to the left ear (Bryden, Munhall, & Allard, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref63">12</reflink>]; Hugdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref64">52</reflink>]). This "right ear advantage" may reflect preferential access to processing in the left-hemisphere that distinguishes consonants and/or language processing (Andersson, Reinvang, Wehling, Hugdahl, & Lundervold, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>]). Additionally, during the focused attention condition, the consonant-vowel presented to the attended ear is reported most often, increasing the right ear advantage when attending to the right and having little or no ear differences when attending to the left (Cherry, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref66">16</reflink>]; Hiscock & Kinsbourne, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref67">47</reflink>]; Hiscock, Kinsbourne, Caplan, & Swanson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref68">48</reflink>]). Previous studies investigating dichotic listening and creativity did not measure the right ear advantage (Dykes & McGhie, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref69">36</reflink>]; Rawlings, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref70">83</reflink>]). Consequently, it is unknown how it relates to creativity.</p> <p>Lastly, on ~ 10–20% of trials, participants report hearing a consonant-vowel that was not presented (Andersson, Reinvang, Wehling, Hugdahl, & Lundervold, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>]; Yurgil & Golob, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref72">109</reflink>]). These misperceptions of dichotic sounds may indicate attentional lapses, particularly under conditions where the two consonant-vowels fuse and are perceived as a unitary stimulus (Cutting, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref73">27</reflink>]). Furthermore, mind wandering, which are task unrelated thoughts, may occur during these attentional lapses and may benefit the creative process during the incubation phase (Baird et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]). For Example, Baird et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>]) found that participants who engaged in an undemanding task, which was conducive to mind wandering, significantly improved their performance on a previously seen divergent thinking task compared to those who engaged in a demanding task. Mind wandering is different from a distraction in that it is considered to be a type of attentional failure that originates from within, while distractions are attentional failures that originate externally (Varao-Sousa, Smilek, & Kingstone, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref76">104</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-5">Dichotic listening and creativity</hd> <p>Only two studies examined relations between attention in dichotic listening and creativity (Dykes & McGhie, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref77">36</reflink>]; Rawlings, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref78">83</reflink>]). Both tested individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia in an effort to better understand how creativity is related to mental illness. A shadowing variation of dichotic listening was used, where participants repeated words presented to one ear, while different words were simultaneously delivered to the other ear. People with schizophrenia repeated words from the unattended ear more often than healthy controls. The same tendency to repeat words from the unattended ear was seen in higher vs. lower creative groups (Dykes & McGhie, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref79">36</reflink>]), and is reminiscent of greater processing of background speech. From the standpoint of understanding attention and creativity, limitations of these studies include use of a clinical population and a dichotic paradigm that did not tightly control attention. Prior work revealed the complex interrelationships of motor output and acoustic input on speech (Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref80">64</reflink>]; Stowe & Golob, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref81">98</reflink>]), and perception (Franklin & Wolpert, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref82">42</reflink>]; Myers, Mock, & Golob, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref83">76</reflink>]), which are typical in schizophrenia (Ford, Mathalon, Whitfield, Faustman, & Roth, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref84">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-6">Purpose and design of the current study</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to test for relations between attention control (misperceptions, focused attention, divided attention) and creativity (achievement, convergent and divergent test performance) using dichotic listening attention tasks that place minimal demands on memory. Unlike prior studies that compared individual differences between groups of participants with high vs. low scores on creativity tests, this study examines the full range of scores using correlational methods on large sample sizes. Testing replicability is built-in by having two experiments with a common set of creativity and attention measures.</p> <p>Given past research suggesting that leaky attention promotes creativity, we hypothesize that focused attention will be negatively related to creativity. However, an alternative hypothesis is that if focused attention is beneficial to creativity, then better focused attention will positively correlate to creativity. The role(s) of attention control in creativity could, however, depend on the type of creativity task – with attention control having a stronger relation to individual differences in performance on convergent thinking tasks, where there is a "right answer," relative to more open-ended divergent thinking tasks. Additionally, we hypothesize that if the right ear advantage reflects greater attention capacity, then the right ear advantage will be negatively correlated to creativity. Lastly, there are two competing hypotheses regarding misperceptions. If misperceptions index the propensity to mind wander, which may promote the ability to combine ideas in new ways, then we predict a positive relationship to creativity measures. Alternatively, if misperceptions indicate counterproductive attentional lapses, then we predict a negative association with creativity measures.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-7">Experiment 1</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186774304-8">Subjects</hd> <p>One hundred and sixty-nine university students were recruited for course credit. Participants were screened by self-report for normal hearing and the absence of major neurological or psychiatric disorders. Two participants were rejected due to major hearing impairments. Additionally, 19 students did not complete all measures and their data were not used in the analyses. A total of 148 students completed the study, and their data were used in the final analysis (Male/Female = 58/90; mean age = 20.7 yrs, age range: 18-50 yrs; Right/Left = 134/14). Although this sample consisted of mostly right-handed individuals, <emph>t</emph>-tests comparing right and left-handed groups on each condition showed no significant differences. This is aligned with past research indicating that handedness typically does not significantly affect performance on the Dichotic Listening Task (Briggs & Nebes, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>]). This study was administered online via Inquisit 6 software published by Millisecond Software, Seattle, Washington. This study received approval by the University Internal Review Board.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-9">Task</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186774304-10">Screening participants</hd> <p>Correct headphone placement in the left/right ears was verified by playing a sound in either the left or right earphone, and participants were asked to drag a slider to the side they heard the sound. Next, participants were given a screen to further verify acceptable sound quality. Participants listened for randomly presented monaural pure tones (<reflink idref="bib500" id="ref86">500</reflink>, 1000, 1500, or 2000 Hz) and pressed a button when a sound was presented (total of 16 trials). All participants passed the verification of headphone placement and audibility.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-11">Materials and methods</hd> <p>Laboratory tests of creativity can be divided into those that assess divergent or convergent thinking, while recognizing that there are elements of both in some tasks (Cortes, Weinberger, Daker, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref87">21</reflink>]). During convergent creative thinking tasks, participants try to generate a correct, but unconventional, answer to solve a problem. Creative problem solving can be measured in a wide variety of ways, such as asking participants about unusual situations that require creative problem solving (e.g., the two rope problem), or with thought experiments (i.e., Duncker's candle problem) or riddles (Dow & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref88">31</reflink>]; Duncker, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref89">35</reflink>]). In divergent thinking tasks, multiple answers are generated to an open-ended question (Mumford, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref90">73</reflink>]; Runco, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref91">85</reflink>]; Runco & Acar, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref92">86</reflink>]). A popular divergent thinking measure is the Alternative Uses Task (Guilford, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref93">46</reflink>]), which asks participants to creatively devise alternative uses of a common household item. It is important to note that none of the following laboratory tests of creativity contained an incubation period, and by their brief nature likely minimized opportunities for mind wandering.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-12">Creative problem-solving questions</hd> <p>Dow and Meyer (Dow & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref94">31</reflink>]) curated a large set of riddles to use as a battery of creative problem-solving questions. They divided the riddles into three categories (verbal, math, spatial) to measure the different domains of creative problem-solving ability. We selected 9 creative problem-solving questions from Dow and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref95">31</reflink>]), p. 3 mathematical (α<subs>Experiment 1</subs> =.24; α<subs>Experiment 2</subs> =.22), 3 spatial (α<subs>Experiment 1</subs> =.63; α<subs>Experiment 2</subs> =.47), and 3 verbal (α <subs>Experiment 1</subs> =.64; α<subs>Experiment 2</subs> =.62) questions (shown in online supplementary material). These 9 questions together had a Cronbach alpha of.70 in Experiment 1 and a Cronbach alpha of.68 in Experiment 2. Since the removal of the math cps questions only marginally improved reliability (α <subs>Experiment 1</subs> =.73; α<subs>Experiment 2</subs> =.68) all nine questions were retained in both studies. Each correct answer counted as a point. The three spatial questions had multiple components to their answers; thus, participants were able to earn partial credit. The average score was 2.7 (M<subs>Experiment 2</subs> = 3.0) while the standard deviation was 2 (SD<subs>Experiment 2</subs> = 2.0). Participants had up to 5 minutes to answer each question.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-13">Alternative uses task</hd> <p>Participants were given one Alternative Uses Task. They had 3 minutes to type as many alternative ways to use a bell. Following the procedure used by Kudrowitz and Dippo ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref96">62</reflink>]), two graders analyzed the responses by identifying keywords (e.g., collar, alarm) that were then nested under different function categories (e.g., clothing, attention, etc.). For example, the keyword for the common response of "put bell on dog collar" was "collar" and the functional category was "clothing" since a collar is something that is worn. The responses were graded for fluency, appropriate fluency, flexibility, elaboration, frequency-based originality, and rater-based originality as described in Guilford ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref97">46</reflink>]) and Reiter-Palmon, Forthmann, and Barbot ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref98">84</reflink>]). Fluency measured the number of responses. Since some responses included unfeasible uses given the natural properties of a bell and lacked detail of how to overcome these limitations (i.e., "a floating device") or vague responses, which were unclear responses due to a lack of detail (i.e., "parties"), an "appropriate fluency" category was used to measure appropriate responses. Flexibility measured the number of categories a subject produced in their response set; this indicates how many times a participant switched to a new and unique category while responding. Each unique category in a participant's response set earned one flexibility point. For example, as stated above, the functional category of "collar" is "clothing," so the subject would receive one flexibility point. However, response "door bell" and "dinner bell" are both functionally categorized as ways to get someone's attention, so that subject would only get one flexibility point across both responses. Flexibility points were summed for each participant, which was similar to the scoring method employed by Nusbaum and Silvia ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref99">77</reflink>]) and Hoff and Carlsson ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref100">49</reflink>]). Elaboration assessed the level of detail in each individual response. For example, "put bell on dog collar" elaborated on the type of collar; therefore, this response received one elaboration point. As suggested by Reiter-Palmon, Forthmann, and Barbot ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref101">84</reflink>]), originality was scored as frequency-based and rater-based. Frequency-based originality was considered how frequent a response, each represented by a keyword, was used within the study sample. The top 2–5% of responses were given 1 point while the top 1% of responses or less was given 2 points. Additionally, rater-based originality was assessed by raters evaluating each response for creativity across a 3-point scale (0 = uncreative, 1= creative, 2= highly creative). Each rater was instructed to rate each answer according to this 3-point scale regardless of how frequently the response occurred. This method of using a rating scale to evaluate responses is similar to the 3-pt scale used by Christensen, Guilford, and Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref102">17</reflink>]) and a 5-point scale used by Silvia et al. ([<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref103">93</reflink>]). Interrater agreement and reliability was high for fluency (Experiment 1: 99.6%, κ = 0.92; Experiment 2: 99.9%, κ =.86), appropriate fluency (Experiment 1 97.5%, κ = 0.76; Experiment 2: 97.2%, κ =.67), flexibility (Experiment 1: 98%, κ = 0.96; Experiment 2: 95.0%, κ =.90), and elaboration (Experiment 1: 81%, κ = 0.62; Experiment 2: 81%, κ =.60). Rater-based originality's reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa since it is categorical data (Fleiss, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref104">38</reflink>]). As expected, inter-rater reliability for rater-based originality was less than for the more objective or constrained metrics above (Experiment 1: 95.6%, κ =.23; Experiment 2: 96.9%, κ =.24), and was comparable to prior work using rater-based originality Dumas, Organisciak, and Doherty ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref105">34</reflink>]). Interrater reliability was not calculated for frequency-based originality, because it is objectively based on the frequency of responses in the data set. The various AUT measures capture different aspects of creativity. For instance, fluency and appropriate fluency measure the quantity of ideas produced, while flexibility, frequency-based originality, and rater-based originality measure the quality of answers produced (Reiter-Palmon, Forthmann, & Barbot, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref106">84</reflink>]). Given that the subscores measure different aspects of creativity, it is important to evaluate how attention relates to each of these divergent thinking metrics.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-14">Creative achievement questionnaire</hd> <p>The Creative Achievement Questionnaire was devised and validated by Carson, Peterson, and Higgins ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref107">14</reflink>]). It is a self-report survey that measures creative achievement in ten different domains (e.g., creative writing, culinary arts, dance, humor, visual arts, music, theater and film, architectural design, scientific inquiry, inventions) (α<subs>study1</subs> =.68; α<subs>study2</subs> =.66). This measure consists of two subscales, science creative achievement (culinary arts, scientific inquiry, inventions) and art creative achievement (creative writing, dance, humor, visual arts, music, theater and film).</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-15">Dichotic listening task</hd> <p>The dichotic listening task was administered using Inquisit 6 software published by Millisecond Software, Seattle, Washington. Participants were instructed to wear headphones during the task. On their screen, participants were shown four boxes each labeled with one of the four consonant vowels (CVs) used in the study. The order of the CVs were randomly generated for each participant. To report the sound they heard, participants were instructed to click the respective box. Although the instructions varied between conditions, the basic mechanics of selecting sounds was the same. Participants underwent the conditions, divided, attend left, and attend right. In the divided condition, participants were instructed to report the CV they heard best. In the attend right condition, participants were instructed to report the sound presented to their right ear. In the attend left condition, participants were instructed to report the sound presented to their left ear. The divided attention condition was given first, followed by focused attention in counterbalanced order of attend left then right, or vice versa. The divided attention condition was administered first to avoid potential carryover effects from initially focusing attention to each ear. Preliminary analyses show no difference between order of focused attention, and they were combined in later analyses. Each condition had 2 blocks of 60 trials (120 trials total/condition). Four consonant-vowels at a comfortable listening level were used:/da/,/ga/,/ka/, and/ta/(250 ms duration). The sequences were balanced so that all 12 consonant-vowel ear pairs were given 5 times in each sequence. Participants were instructed to be accurate in their responses, with less emphasis on speed.</p> <p>Each dichotic listening trial had three possible responses: the consonant-vowel in the left ear, right ear, or one of the other two consonant vowels that were not presented on that trial (misperceptions). Participants responded promptly on most trials, suggesting that trials with two "best" CV percepts were not common. Occasional trials (<1.5%) without a response were not included in the analyses. In addition to the percent of trials with each of the three possible responses (left ear, right ear, misperception), we also calculated a laterality index to quantify the proportion of left vs. right ear trial responses. The laterality index formula is: (right ear trials -left ear trials)/(right ear trials + left ear trials). The laterality index ranges from −1 (all left ear trial responses) to + 1 (all right ear trial responses), with "0" indicating equal proportions of left and right ear trials.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-16">Experimental procedures</hd> <p>Participants were given the following (in order): creative problem-solving questions, Alternative Uses Tasks, and the Creative Life Achievement questionnaire. All questions were presented in the same order for all participants. Dichotic listening testing was performed last.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-17">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>Relations among creativity and attention measures were assessed using Pearson correlations Preliminary analyses showed that the creativity data were not normally distributed, which is consistent with previous research (Fugate, Zentall, & Gentry, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref108">43</reflink>]). As with Fugate, Zentall, and Gentry ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref109">43</reflink>]), we used a square root transformation on creativity data to correct for left skewness. The results were mostly all the same as without transformation (See online supplementary material). Consequently the data in the main analyses were not transformed to aid interpretability. Within subject analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to define attention effects on dichotic listening measures. Post hoc testing used pairwise t-tests with Bonferroni corrections.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186774304-19">Creativity measures</hd> <p>Correlations among the creativity measures are shown in Table 1. Performance on creative problem solving (<emph>M</emph> = 2.65, SD = 2.00) was significantly correlated to several AUT subscores (Fluency, Appropriate Fluency, and Flexibility), but was not significantly correlated to creative achievement (<emph>M</emph> = 10.41, SD = 8.86). Creative achievement was correlated to fluency and flexibility in the AUT. These data support the distinction between lab performance and achievement.</p> <p>Table 1. Correlations Between Attention and Creativity Measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>LI Left</td><td>LI_ Divided</td><td>LI_ Right</td><td>Misperception</td><td>Achieve</td><td>CPS</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LI_ Left</td><td>-</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>LI_ Divided</td><td>−.12</td><td>-</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>LI_ Right</td><td>.<bold>45***</bold></td><td>.<bold>48***</bold></td><td>-</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Misperception</td><td><bold>−.46***</bold></td><td>−.09</td><td><bold>−.42***</bold></td><td>-</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Achieve</td><td>.12</td><td>.05</td><td>.16</td><td><bold>−.25**</bold></td><td>-</td><td /></tr><tr><td>CPS</td><td>.<bold>18*</bold></td><td>.03</td><td>.<bold>17*</bold></td><td><bold>−.28***</bold></td><td>.11</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>AUT</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Fluency</td><td>−.133</td><td>.06</td><td>−.01</td><td><bold>−.19*</bold></td><td>.<bold>17*</bold></td><td>.<bold>24*</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Appropriate Fluency</td><td>−.13</td><td>.06</td><td>.01</td><td><bold>−.20*</bold></td><td>.14</td><td>.<bold>25**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>−.15</td><td>.06</td><td>.02</td><td><bold>−.20</bold></td><td>.<bold>222**</bold></td><td>.<bold>26**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Elaboration</td><td>−.022</td><td>.01</td><td>.04</td><td>−.15</td><td>.03</td><td>.14</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency-based Originality</td><td><bold>−.23**</bold></td><td>.08</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.03</td><td>.01</td><td>.12</td></tr><tr><td>Rater-based Originality</td><td>−.15</td><td>.11</td><td>.09</td><td>−.05</td><td>.07</td><td>.077</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. *<emph>p</emph> <.05, ** <emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001. Laterality Index left was multiplied by −1, so that larger laterality index values indicate greater focus in both the attend left and right ear conditions. LI_Left = Laterality Index Left, LI_Divided = Laterality Index Divided. LI_Right = Laterality Index Right. Achieve = Creative Achievement. CPS = creative problem solving. AUT = Alternative Uses Task.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-20">Dichotic listening measures</hd> <p>The dichotic listening results are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. Response times ranged from 1025 to 1232 ms across conditions and response choice. The divided attention condition had the expected right ear advantage (35.8% left ear, 50.7% right ear; t<subs>(<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref110">147</reflink>)</subs> = −7.43, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d = -.61), which was even greater in the attend right condition (65.3% right ear, t<subs>(<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref111">147</reflink>)</subs> = −8.56, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d = −.704). Focusing attention to the left ear eliminated the right ear advantage, producing a left ear advantage instead (54.7% left, 28.6% right; t<subs>(<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref112">147</reflink>)</subs> = 7.73, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d =.635). The allocation of trials with left vs. right ear consonant-vowel reports was quantified by the laterality index for each condition Figure 1(B). A one-way ANOVA of condition showed that the laterality index increased from attend left, divided, and attend right conditions (F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref113">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib441" id="ref114">441</reflink>)</subs> = 151.605, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> =.407).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Experiment 1 dichotic listening measures (A) plot of % trials with reports of consonant vowels presented to the left or right ear, and misperceived consonant vowels. Laterality index (B) and misperceptions (C) as a function of condition.</p> <p>To simplify comparisons among conditions, the laterality index for the attend left condition was multiplied by −1, so that larger laterality index values indicate greater ability to report consonant-vowels at the ear where attention was directed in both the attend left and right ear conditions (To simplify comparisons among conditions, the laterality index for the attend left condition was multiplied by −1, so that larger laterality index values indicate greater ability to report consonant-vowels at the ear where attention was directed in both the attend left and right ear conditions (). There was a strong correlation between attend right and left conditions, indicating that participants who were good at focusing attention to one ear were likely to do the same for the other ear. Laterality indexes for divided attention and attend right had a significant correlation, which was not evident for the divided and attend left conditions.</p> <p>Overall, misperceptions occurred on about 15% of trials and were more frequent when focusing on the left ear vs. the divided and attend right conditions, as shown by a significant one-way ANOVA on condition (F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref115">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib441" id="ref116">441</reflink>)</subs> = 4.07, <emph>p</emph> =.018, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> =. 018) (Figure 1C). Paired comparisons indicated significantly more misperceptions in the attend left vs. the other conditions (both <emph>p</emph> values <.001). Misperceptions in the divided and attend right conditions were about the same (<emph>p</emph> =.98). There were strong correlations between misperceptions and laterality indexes in the focused attention conditions (Table 1). Thus, greater ability to focus attention was accompanied by fewer misperceptions.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-21">Relations among creativity and dichotic listening measures</hd> <p>Correlations between creativity and dichotic listening are shown in Table 1 and Figure 2. Misperceptions were negatively correlated to creative achievement (<emph>r</emph> = −.25), creative problem solving (<emph>r</emph> = −.28), fluency (<emph>r</emph> = −.19), appropriate uses (<emph>r</emph> = −.20), and flexibility (<emph>r</emph> = −.20). Focused attention was positively correlated to creative problem solving (<emph>r</emph><subs>focus left</subs> =.18, <emph>r</emph><subs>focus right</subs> =.17) and negative correlated to frequency-based originality (<emph>r</emph><subs>focus left</subs> = = −.23). To further assess the relationship between creativity and dichotic listening, a simultaneous regression was conducted to estimate the unique contribution of each attention measure to creativity. These analyses analyzed composite measures of misperceptions and focused attention. The misperception composite was the average of the three misperception measures (left, right, divided). The focused attention composite was the average of the two focused attention measures (left, right). The composites were justified based on the conceptual overlap among misperception variables and, separately, focused attention variables. The composites were also justified based on the strong relations among focused attention measures (mean <emph>r</emph> =.45, Table 1), which correlated strongly with misperceptions (mean <emph>r</emph> = −.44, Table 1). Strong correlations among predictors in regression can produce multicollinearity, which inflates standard errors and produces unstable regression weights.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Experiment 1 creativity x misperceptions. Scatterplots of misperceptions against creative achievement (A), creative problem solving (B), and the alternative uses task (subscales were summed here to explore general trend of the AUT with misperceptions) (C). To investigate the general trend in divergent thinking and misperceptions, sub-scores of the alternative uses task were summed. All three creativity measures had significant negative correlations to the percent of trials with misperceptions.</p> <p>Table 2 reports simultaneous regressions of creativity on the two attention composites (misperceptions and focused attention) and divided attention. Together, the set of attention measures (misperceptions, focused attention, divided attention) significantly predicted creative achievement (<emph>R</emph> =.26), creative problem solving (<emph>R</emph> =.29), fluency (<emph>R</emph> =.30), appropriate uses (<emph>R</emph> =.30), and frequency-based originality (<emph>R</emph> =.26). As expected, misperceptions significantly and negatively predicted creative achievement (β = −.24), creative problem solving (β = −.23), and several subscores of the Alternative Uses Task (β<subs>Fluency</subs> = −32, β<subs>Appropriate Uses</subs> = −.33, β<subs>Flexibility</subs> = −.33, β <subs>Elaboration</subs> = −.19). The negative relations indicate that more misperceptions predicted less creativity. In addition, focused attention <emph>negatively</emph> predicted fluency (β = −.27), flexibility (β = −.27), and originality (β = −.29), but did not predict performance on the other tasks (β =.03 and.09, creative achievement and problem solving, respectively). The significant negative effect of focused attention on the subscores of the Alternative Uses Task indicates that better focused attention ability predicted less creativity, a finding that was unexpected and will be revisited in the Discussion. No other significant effects were observed.</p> <p>Table 2. Simultaneous regressions of creativity measures on misperception composite, focused attention composite, and divided attention (experiment 1, <emph>N</emph> = 148).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Outcome</td><td><italic>R</italic><sub>model</sub></td><td><italic>F</italic><sub>model</sub></td><td>β<sub>Focus</sub></td><td>β<sub>Div</sub></td><td>β<sub>Mis</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Focus</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Div</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Mis</sub></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Achieve</td><td>.26</td><td><bold>3.39*</bold></td><td>.03</td><td>.03</td><td><bold>−.24*</bold></td><td>.15</td><td>.05</td><td><bold>−.25**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>CPS</td><td>.29</td><td><bold>4.34**</bold></td><td>.09</td><td>−.01</td><td><bold>−.23</bold>*</td><td>.<bold>21*</bold></td><td>.03</td><td><bold>−.28***</bold></td></tr><tr><td>AUT</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Fluency</td><td>.30</td><td><bold>4.72**</bold></td><td><bold>−.27**</bold></td><td>.08</td><td><bold>−.32***</bold></td><td>−.09</td><td>.06</td><td><bold>−.19*</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Appropriate use</td><td>.30</td><td><bold>4.82**</bold></td><td>−.26**</td><td>.08</td><td><bold>−.33***</bold></td><td>−.07</td><td>.06</td><td><bold>−.20*</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>.31</td><td>4.95**</td><td><bold>−.27**</bold></td><td>.08</td><td><bold>−.33***</bold></td><td>−.08</td><td>.06</td><td><bold>−.20*</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Elaboration</td><td>.177</td><td>1.35</td><td>−.09</td><td>.012</td><td><bold>−.19*</bold></td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.15</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency-based Originality</td><td>.26</td><td><bold>3.40*</bold></td><td><bold>−.29**</bold></td><td>.12</td><td>−.17</td><td><bold>−.18*</bold></td><td>.08</td><td>−.03</td></tr><tr><td>Rater-based Originality</td><td>.15</td><td>1.11</td><td>−.12</td><td>.12</td><td>−.10</td><td>−.04</td><td>.11</td><td>−.05</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001 Achieve = Creative Achievement. CPS = CreativeC Problem Solving. AUT = Alternative Uses Task. <emph><bold>R</bold></emph><subs>model</subs> = correlation among set of variables with creativity measure. <emph><bold>F</bold></emph><subs>model</subs> = <emph>F</emph> statistic for model with all predictors. <bold>β</bold><subs>Focus</subs>, <bold>β</bold><subs>Div</subs>, <bold>β</bold><subs>Mis</subs><emph><bold>=</bold></emph> standardized regression weights for focused attention, divided attention, and misperceptions, respectively. <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Focus</subs>, <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Div</subs>, <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Mis</subs> = correlations with focused attention, divided attention, and misperceptions, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-22">Discussion</hd> <p>There were two main findings on individual differences in creativity and attention in Experiment 1. First, both correlation and regression methods indicate that more creative individuals tended to have fewer misperceptions in the dichotic listening task. This relationship was seen in creative achievement, problem solving, and the Alternative Uses Task. The negative relation between misperceptions and creativity measures supports the hypothesis that misperceptions index detrimental attention lapses, and does not support the hypothesis of beneficial mind wandering. Second, better focused attention (combined attend left and right conditions) predicted worse divergent thinking, which is consistent with studies where creative individuals had difficulty screening out irrelevant stimuli (Ansburg & Hill, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>]; Kasof, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref119">55</reflink>]; Mendelsohn & Griswold, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref120">70</reflink>]) and bears some similarity to creative achievement being related to reductions in latent inhibition to familiar stimuli (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref121">15</reflink>]; Kéri, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref122">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study is the first to establish a relationship between misperceptions and creativity. Misperceptions occur when the simultaneous dichotic presentation of two carefully matched consonant-vowel stimuli, one to each ear, generates a stimulus that can be perceived differently on different occasions (termed "multistability") (Leopold & Logothetis, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref123">63</reflink>]). For example, the left ear consonant-vowel may be perceived best on a given trial, but on a different trial the right ear consonant-vowel may be the dominant percept. The present study used consonant-vowel stimuli that only differed by the initial stop consonant, which posed a challenge to perceptual systems (Cutting, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref124">27</reflink>]), and increases the likelihood of misperceptions. Subjects here reported misperceptions on about 15% of trials, which is comparable to the misperception rate in a prior study using the same stimuli (Yurgil & Golob, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref125">109</reflink>]). Misperceptions in dichotic listening have not been studied in detail, and are often not reported, so the theoretical significance beyond misclassification of multistable stimuli is unclear. We suspect that misperceptions may stem from attentional lapses, where subjects are not strongly focused on the task. This possibility is addressed in more detail in the General Discussion.</p> <p>Regression analyses also showed that once the other attention variables were controlled, individual differences in focused attention negatively predicted divergent thinking but did not relate to creative problem solving. Prior work also suggests a negative relationship between focused attention and divergent creativity in people with schizophrenia (Dykes & McGhie, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref126">36</reflink>]) and in healthy adults (Mendelsohn & Griswold, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref127">70</reflink>]). More recent work used performance measures (reaction time) on global-local attention tasks to define links between attention control and creativity in the context of divergent creativity lab tasks and creative achievement in everyday life (Zabelina, Saporta, & Beeman, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref128">112</reflink>]). In one experiment, participants were asked to focus attention to either the local or global level of Navon letters. Results showed that performance in individuals with higher scores on divergent creativity was less affected when the target appeared at the uncued level, suggesting that attention was either less focused or better able to shift between levels. However, a second experiment that was designed to assess the impact of conflicting irrelevant information on reaction time found no significant association between performance and divergent creativity, although there was a robust relation to creative achievement in daily life. We caution against making direct comparisons of speeded performance and self-reports of perceptual outcomes. Nonetheless, the findings together point to a role of basic attention control in higher-level creativity on divergent thinking tasks.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-23">Experiment 2</hd> <p>Experiment 1 showed that performance on attention tasks that had minimal memory requirements was correlated to individual differences in creativity. In Experiment 2, we examined the reliability of Experiment 1 findings by testing a new group of subjects using the same procedures and measures. In addition, the scope of creativity measures was expanded by including another common laboratory measure of creativity – the Remote Associates Test (RAT) (Mednick, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref129">69</reflink>]). In the RAT, participants are given three seemingly unrelated words. Participants are then asked to find a fourth word that relates to all three of the previous words. For example, participants might be given the words "Bean," "Trash," and "Sleep." The fourth word that relates to each of the words is "Bag." Lastly, we explored how laboratory measures of creative performance and attention may relate to self-reported attention in everyday life and university grade point average (GPA). The GPA was used as a rough estimate of general intelligence (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref130">33</reflink>]), and self-reported GPA correlates well to official GPA records (Coyle, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref131">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-24">Subjects</hd> <p>One hundred and seventy-three undergraduate students were recruited for course credit. One participant was rejected due to self-reported major hearing issues. Additionally, 12 participants dropped out before completing all measures, and their data were not included. A total of 160 participants completed all measures (Male/Female = 32/128; mean age = 22.6 yrs., range: 17–50 yrs., Right/Left = 147/13). Although this sample consisted of mostly females, <emph>t</emph>-tests revealed no significant sex difference. This is aligned with past research indicating minimal sex difference in dichotic listening results.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-25">Materials and methods</hd> <p>This experiment was administered online using Inquisit 6 software published by Millisecond Software, Seattle, Washington. Experiment 2 used those same measures as in Experiment 1 (i.e., AUT, CPS, CAQ) and added measures of creativity (Remote Associates Test, RAT), attention in daily life (Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, CFQ), cumulative college grade point average (GPA), and standardized test scores (Scholastic Aptitude Test, SAT). The RAT is a common laboratory measure of creativity and is weighted toward convergent thinking ability because each problem has an objectively correct answer. The CFQ quantifies self-reported attention and memory failures in daily life and was added to compare the laboratory findings of attention and creativity with attention in daily life. The GPA was analyzed but SAT data were not, because only 57.7% of participants reported SAT scores.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-26">Remote Associates Test (RAT)</hd> <p>The RAT was developed by Mednick (Mendick, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref132">71</reflink>]). Participants are given 15 sets of three words with 5 minutes to complete them all. These fifteen were used in a previous study of creativity (Eskine, Anderson, Sullivan, & Golob, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref133">37</reflink>]). Each triad consisted of 3 seemingly unrelated words. The participant is tasked with finding a fourth word that relates to each of the 3 words. An example triad is: "sleeping/bean/trash," the related fourth word is "bag." Cronbach alpha was.918.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-27">Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (CFQ)</hd> <p>The questionnaire has 25 items that assess everyday absent mindedness (Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald, & Parkes, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref134">11</reflink>]). Responses to each item are given on a 5-point Likert scale from "0 (never)" to "4 (often)." In addition to the overall score, there are also three subscales: Distractibility, Forgetfulness, and Triggering. Cronbach alpha was.944.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-28">Experimental procedures</hd> <p>Experimental procedures were the same as Experiment 1. Participants were given the following tasks (in order): creative problem-solving questions, Alternative Uses Task, Creative Life Achievement questionnaire, Remote Associates Test, and the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire. Dichotic listening testing was performed last.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-29">Data analysis and statistical methods</hd> <p>Data analyses and statistical methods were the same as used in Experiment 1.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-30">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186774304-31">Creativity measures</hd> <p>Correlations among the creativity measures are shown in Table 3. Unlike in Experiment 1, creative achievement (<emph>M</emph> = 11.44, SD = 13.47) was significantly correlated with all subscales of the Alternative Uses Task. Within the creative performance tests, problem solving (<emph>M</emph> = 2.98, SD = 1.96) had significant positive correlations with several AUT subscales and the RAT (<emph>M</emph> = 6.58, SD = 4.83). The Alternative Uses Task and the RAT were not significantly correlated.</p> <p>Table 3. Correlation between attention and creativity measures (experiment 2).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>LI_Left</td><td>LI_ Divided</td><td>LI_ Right</td><td>Misperception</td><td>Achieve</td><td>CPS</td><td>RAT</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LI_Left</td><td>-</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>LI_ Divided</td><td>.03</td><td>-</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>LI_ Right</td><td>.<bold>57***</bold></td><td>.<bold>48***</bold></td><td>-</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Misperception</td><td><bold>−.50***</bold></td><td><bold>−.30***</bold></td><td><bold>−.63***</bold></td><td>-</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Achieve</td><td>−.11</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.05</td><td>.01</td><td>-</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>CPS</td><td>−.03</td><td>−.05</td><td>.15</td><td><bold>−.24**</bold></td><td>−.09</td><td>-</td><td /></tr><tr><td>RAT</td><td>.10</td><td>.03</td><td>.<bold>16*</bold></td><td><bold>−.19*</bold></td><td>.03</td><td>.<bold>42***</bold></td><td /></tr><tr><td>AUT</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Fluency</td><td>.03</td><td>.13</td><td>.02</td><td>−.11</td><td>.<bold>20*</bold></td><td>.<bold>22**</bold></td><td>.00</td></tr><tr><td>Appropriate Fluency</td><td>.04</td><td>.15</td><td>.03</td><td>−.13</td><td>.<bold>20*</bold></td><td>.<bold>20*</bold></td><td>−.04</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>.02</td><td>.02</td><td>−.09</td><td>−.13</td><td>.<bold>19*</bold></td><td>.<bold>29**</bold></td><td>−.01</td></tr><tr><td>Elaboration</td><td>−.03</td><td>.<bold>17*</bold></td><td>.03</td><td>−.09</td><td>.<bold>32**</bold></td><td>.11</td><td>−.08</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency-based Originality</td><td>.03</td><td>.01</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.09</td><td>.<bold>26**</bold></td><td>.<bold>22**</bold></td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>Rater-based Originality</td><td>.08</td><td>−.10</td><td>.01</td><td>−.12</td><td>.<bold>16*</bold></td><td>.06</td><td>−.02</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. *<emph>p</emph> <.05, ** <emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001. Laterality Index left was multiplied by −1, so that larger laterality index values indicate greater focus in both the attend left and right ear conditions. LI_Left = Laterality Index Left, LI_Divided = Laterality Index Divided. LI_Right = Laterality Index Right. Achieve = Creative Achievement. CPS = creative problem solving. AUT = Alternative Uses Task.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-32">Dichotic listening measures</hd> <p>Dichotic listening results are shown in Figure 3. Mean reaction times ranged from 1,007 to 1,199 ms across conditions. As in Experiment 1, there was a right ear advantage in the divided attention condition (34.5% left ear, 52.4% right ear; t<subs>(<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref135">160</reflink>)</subs> = 8.695, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d =.685), that further increased in the attend right condition (t<subs>(<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref136">160</reflink>)</subs> = 9.612, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d =.758) (Figure 3A). In the attend left condition, participants were much more likely to report the left ear consonant vowel (59.1% Left, 26.8% Right, t<subs>(<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref137">160</reflink>)</subs> = 9.879, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d =.779). Analysis of the laterality index using a one-way ANOVA test on condition was significant (F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref138">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib480" id="ref139">480</reflink>)</subs> = 215.259, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> =.473) (Figure 3B). Post hoc paired comparisons showed that all conditions significantly differed from each other (all <emph>p</emph>'s <.01). Unlike Experiment 1, the percent of trials with misperceptions was comparable among all three conditions (F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref140">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib480" id="ref141">480</reflink>)</subs> =.506, <emph>p</emph> =.603, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> =. 002), although a trend for more misperceptions in attend left, as seen in Experiment 1, was evident (Figure 3C). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in misperceptions between Experiment 1 (<emph>M</emph> =.15, SD =.10) and Experiment 2 (<emph>M</emph> =.14, SD =.09), t<subs>(<reflink idref="bib306" id="ref142">306</reflink>)</subs> =.97, <emph>p</emph> =.33.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Experiment 2 dichotic listening measures. (A) plot of % of trials with reports of left ear, right ear, or misperceived consonant vowels. Laterality index (B) and misperceptions (C) as a function of condition.</p> <p>Correlations among dichotic listening measures are shown in Table 3. There was a positive correlation between laterality indexes when focusing to the left and right ears (<emph>p</emph> <.001). The laterality indexes in the attend right and divided attention conditions were also significantly correlated (<emph>p</emph> <.001), which was not seen among the attend left and divided conditions (<emph>p</emph> =.690). Misperceptions had significant, negative correlations to laterality indexes in the attend left (<emph>p</emph> <.001), attend right (<emph>p</emph> <.001), and divided attention conditions (<emph>p</emph> <.001). These findings precisely replicated Experiment 1, with the addition of a significant correlation between misperceptions and the divided attention laterality index.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-33">Relations among creativity and dichotic listening measures</hd> <p>Correlations among creativity and attention measures are shown in Table 3 and Figure 4. Misperceptions were not significantly correlated to creative achievement (4A, <emph>r</emph> =.01), but had a significant negative correlation with creative problem solving (4B, <emph>r</emph> = −.24). Misperceptions were not correlated to the Alternative Uses Task (4C). However, misperceptions were significantly negatively related to the RAT (4D, <emph>r</emph> = −.19). Most of the laterality index measures were not significantly correlated to the creativity measures, with the exception of divided attention with elaboration (<emph>r</emph> =.17) and focused right attention with the RAT (<emph>r</emph> =.16).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Experiment 2 creativity vs misperceptions. Scatterplots for misperceptions in relation to creative achievement (A), creative problem solving (B), the alternative uses task (subscales were summed to explore general trend of the AUT with misperceptions), (C), and the remote associates test (D), misperceptions had significant negative figure 1 correlations to creative problem solving and the remote associates test.</p> <p>As in Experiment 1, simultaneous regressions predicted creativity using composite measures of misperceptions and focused attention. The analyses regressed each creativity variable onto the two attention composites (focused attention and misperceptions) and divided attention (Table 4). Together, the set of attention measures (focused attention, divided attention, and misperceptions) significantly predicted creative problem solving (<emph>R</emph> =.29), but not the other creativity measures. Consistent with Experiment 1, misperceptions were <emph>negatively</emph> related to all creativity measures, but effects were significant only for creative problem solving (<emph>r</emph> = −.36) and flexibility (<emph>r</emph> =-.25). No significant effects of focused or divided attention were observed for any creativity measure(|β| <.14).</p> <p>Table 4. Simultaneous regressions of creativity measures on misperception composite, focused attention composite, and divided attention (experiment 2, <emph>N</emph> = 160).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Outcome</td><td><italic>R</italic><sub>model</sub></td><td><italic>F</italic><sub>model</sub></td><td>β<sub>Focus</sub></td><td>β<sub>Div</sub></td><td>β<sub>Mis</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Focus</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Div</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Mis</sub></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Achieve</td><td>.12</td><td>.78</td><td>−.14</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.09</td><td>−.09</td><td>.06</td><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>CPS</td><td>.29</td><td><bold>4.87**</bold></td><td>−.14</td><td>−.13</td><td><bold>−.36***</bold></td><td>.06</td><td>−.05</td><td><bold>−.24**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>AUT</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Fluency</td><td>.16</td><td>1.41</td><td>−.08</td><td>.12</td><td>−.13</td><td>.03</td><td>.13</td><td>−.11</td></tr><tr><td>Appropriate use</td><td>.19</td><td>1.90</td><td>−.08</td><td>.13</td><td>−.14</td><td>.04</td><td>.15</td><td>−.13</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>.20</td><td>2.12</td><td>−.19</td><td>−.00</td><td><bold>−.25*</bold></td><td>−.03</td><td>.02</td><td>−.13</td></tr><tr><td>Elaboration</td><td>.20</td><td>2.25</td><td>−.13</td><td>.17*</td><td>−.12</td><td>−.01</td><td>.<bold>17*</bold></td><td>−.09</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency-based Originality</td><td>.11</td><td>.61</td><td>−.07</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.14</td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.09</td></tr><tr><td>Rater-based Originality</td><td>.18</td><td>1.77</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.14-</td><td>−.18</td><td>.05</td><td>−.10</td><td>−.12</td></tr><tr><td>RAT</td><td>.19</td><td>2.00</td><td>.05</td><td>−.03</td><td>−.17</td><td>.14</td><td>.03</td><td><bold>−.19*</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>. *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, *** <emph>p</emph> <.001. Achievement = Creative Achievement. CPS = creative problem solving. AUT = Alternative Uses Task. Rater-based originality = rater-based originality. RAT = Remote Associates Test. <emph><bold>R</bold></emph><subs>model</subs> = correlation among set of variables with creativity measure. <emph><bold>F</bold></emph><subs>model</subs> = <emph>F</emph> statistic for model with all predictors. <bold>β</bold><subs>Focus</subs>, <bold>β</bold><subs>Div</subs>, <bold>β</bold><subs>Mis</subs><emph><bold>=</bold></emph> standardized regression weights for focused attention, divided attention, and misperceptions, respectively. <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Focus</subs>, <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Div</subs>, <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Mis</subs> = correlations with focused attention, divided attention, and misperceptions, respectively. The reliabilities of the scales are as follows: α<subs>achievement</subs> =.66; α<subs>CPS</subs> =.68; α<subs>Rat</subs>=.92; AUT inter-rater reliability: κ<subs>fluency</subs> =.86; κ<subs>appropriate fluency</subs> =.67; κ<subs>flexibility</subs> =.90; κ<subs>elaboration</subs> =.60, κ<subs>Rater-based originality</subs>=.24.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-34">Relations among creativity, attention in daily life, and grade point average measures</hd> <p>There were no significant correlations between the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire total score or three sub-scale scores (M<subs>total</subs> = 67.41, SD = 1.54) and any of the creativity measures (See online supplementary material). Thus, unlike the objective laboratory measures of attention control, self-reported attention and memory function in daily life did not covary with any of the creativity measures.</p> <p>Correlations between creativity, attention, and GPA used a subset of participants who reported their GPA (<emph>n</emph> = 131). There were no significant correlations between any creativity measure and GPA. Among the attention measures, GPA was only significantly correlated to laterality index in the divided condition (<emph>r=</emph>.17, <emph>p</emph> =.046), indicating that the right ear advantage increases as GPA increases. Furthermore, the relationship of attention and creativity while controlling academic ability (proxied by GPA) was assessed by conducting six multiple regression analysis with attention variables and GPA as predictors. The same pattern as depicted in Table 4 emerged, in which only the model predicting creative problem solving was significant (<emph>R</emph> =.29, <emph>p</emph> =.02); however, GPA was not a significant predictor in the model (β = −.04, <emph>p</emph> =.65). Similar to the model reported in Table 4 only misperceptions significantly (and negatively) predicted creative problem solving (β = −.35, <emph>p</emph> =.001).</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-35">Discussion for experiment 2 and combined analysis of experiment 1 and 2</hd> <p>Experiment 2 replicated the main finding of Experiment 1, showing that individual differences in misperceptions were negatively correlated to creative performance. Patterns of interrelations among creativity and dichotic listening measures also replicated those in Experiment 1. Unlike Experiment 1, focused attention was not significantly related to divergent creativity measured by the AUT. Creative achievement was not significantly correlated to any attention measure. Lastly, measures of creativity did not significantly correlate to attention in daily life or GPA.</p> <p>A final set of simultaneous regressions predicted creativity using all subjects in Experiments 1 and 2 (<emph>N</emph> = 308). These analyses combined data from both studies to examine the robustness of effects with a large sample, which enhances precision and stability of effects. In addition, unlike Experiment 1 and 2, the current analyses examined the composite scores <emph>and</emph> their subscales (in parentheses) for creative achievement (art and science subscales), creativeproblem solving (math, verbal, spatial subscales), and alternate uses (fluency, appropriate fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality subscales).</p> <p>The results from simultaneous regressions of creativity (composites and subscales) on misperceptions, focused attention, and divided attention are shown in Table 5. Together, the set of attention variables significantly predicted the composite scores and sub-scales for creative problem solving and alternative uses, but not creative achievement. Misperceptions were significantly and <emph>negatively</emph> related to the composites and subscales of creative problem solving and alternative uses, but not to creative achievement. Divided attention significantly (and positively) predicted science achievement but no other creativity measures. In contrast, focused attention significantly and <emph>negatively</emph> predicted all but one subscore (elaboration) of the Alternate Uses Task. The significant negative effects of focused attention on the Alternative Uses Task when using regression (i.e., beta weights) were larger than the simple correlations of focused attention and alternative uses (Table 5, column <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Focus</subs>). This indicates that the negative effect of focused attention increases when controlling for other related attention variables.</p> <p>Table 5. Simultaneous regressions of creativity measures on focused attention composite, divided attention, and misperception composite (all subjects, <emph>N</emph> = 308).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Outcome</td><td><italic>R</italic><sub>model</sub></td><td><italic>F</italic><sub>model</sub></td><td>β<sub>Focus</sub></td><td>β<sub>Div</sub></td><td>β<sub>Mis</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Focus</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Div</sub></td><td><italic>r</italic><sub>Mis</sub></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Achievement</td><td>.13</td><td>1.78</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.02</td><td><bold>−.16*</bold></td><td>.03</td><td>−.01</td><td><bold>−.12</bold>*</td></tr><tr><td>Art</td><td>.13</td><td>1.67</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.03</td><td><bold>−.15*</bold></td><td>.03</td><td>−.02</td><td><bold>−.11*</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>.08</td><td>.72</td><td>−.04</td><td>.03</td><td>−.09</td><td>.02</td><td>.04</td><td>−.07</td></tr><tr><td>CPS</td><td>.27</td><td><bold>7.89***</bold></td><td>−.01</td><td>−.06</td><td><bold>−.28***</bold></td><td>.<bold>13*</bold></td><td>−.01</td><td><bold>−.26**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Math</td><td>.16</td><td><bold>2.70*</bold></td><td>−.05</td><td>−.02</td><td><bold>−.18**</bold></td><td>.05</td><td>.00</td><td><bold>−.15**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Verbal</td><td>.23</td><td><bold>5.56***</bold></td><td>.00</td><td>−.08</td><td><bold>−.23***</bold></td><td>.<bold>11*</bold></td><td>−.04</td><td><bold>−.21***</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Spatial</td><td>.21</td><td><bold>4.85**</bold></td><td>.00</td><td>−.02</td><td><bold>−.22**</bold></td><td>.<bold>12**</bold></td><td>.02</td><td><bold>−.21***</bold></td></tr><tr><td>AUT</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Fluency</td><td>.23</td><td><bold>5.55**</bold></td><td><bold>−.19**</bold></td><td>.09</td><td><bold>−.25***</bold></td><td>−.03</td><td>.09</td><td><bold>−.15**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Appropriate</td><td>.24</td><td><bold>6.18***</bold></td><td><bold>−.19**</bold></td><td>.10</td><td><bold>−.26***</bold></td><td>−.02</td><td>.11</td><td><bold>−.17**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>.25</td><td><bold>6.90***</bold></td><td><bold>−.24***</bold></td><td>.04</td><td><bold>−.29***</bold></td><td>−.06</td><td>.04</td><td><bold>−.17**</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Elaboration</td><td>.17</td><td><bold>3.10</bold>*</td><td>−.11</td><td>.10</td><td><bold>−.16**</bold></td><td>.01</td><td>.11</td><td><bold>−.12*</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Frequency-based Originality</td><td>.17</td><td><bold>2.88**</bold></td><td><bold>−.19**</bold></td><td>.06</td><td><bold>−.16*</bold></td><td>−.08</td><td>.05</td><td>−.06</td></tr><tr><td>Rater-based Originality</td><td>.09</td><td>.88</td><td>−.07</td><td>.00</td><td>−.11</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.07</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>. *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01. ***<emph>p</emph> <.001. Achievement = creative achievement composite (Achievement) and subscales (Art, Science). CPS = creative problem solving composite (CPS) and subscales (Math, Verbal, Spatial). AUT = Alternative Uses Task composite (AUT) and subscales (Fluency, Appropriate Use, Flexibility, Elaboration, Frequency-based Originality, Rater-based Originality). <emph><bold>R</bold></emph><subs>model</subs> = correlation among set of variables with creativity measure. <emph><bold>F</bold></emph><subs>model</subs> = <emph>F</emph> statistic for model with all predictors. <bold>β</bold><subs>Focus</subs>, <bold>β</bold><subs>Div</subs>, <bold>β</bold><subs>Mis</subs><emph><bold>=</bold></emph> standardized regression weights for focused attention, divided attention, and misperceptions, respectively. <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Focus</subs>, <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Div</subs>, <emph><bold>r</bold></emph><subs>Mis</subs> = correlations with focused attention, divided attention, and misperceptions, respectively. The reliabilities of the collapsed scales are as follows: α<subs>achievement</subs> =.67; α<subs>art</subs> =.66; α<subs>science</subs> =.50; α<subs>CPS</subs> =.69; α<subs>math</subs> =.23; α<subs>verbal</subs> =.64; α<subs>spatial</subs> =.55. AUT inter-rater reliability = κ<subs>fluency</subs> =.86; κ<subs>appropriate fluency</subs> =.67; κ<subs>flexibility</subs> =.90; κ<subs>elaboration</subs> =.60, κ<subs>Rater-based originality</subs>= 24.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-36">General discussion</hd> <p>Two experiments investigated relationships between individual differences in aspects of creativity (creative achievement, creative performance) and aspects of attention control (misperceptions, focused attention, divided attention). Individual differences were examined over the entire range of attention and creativity scores, rather than dividing participants into groups based on higher or lower creativity scores. Large sample sizes were also used to promote statistical power and precise estimates of effect sizes, and replicability between the two experiments was tested.</p> <p>The main finding was that misperceptions in dichotic listening were negatively related to creative performance in the lab and had mixed results with respect to creative achievement. The ability to focus attention was also inversely correlated to performance on a divergent test of creativity (Alternative Uses Task), but was not a significant predictor of convergent creativity measures (creative problem solving, RAT). There was no support for the hypothesis that greater creativity is associated with individual differences in diffuse spatial attention, as there were no compelling regression effects involving the divided attention condition. Estimates of attention and cognition in daily life (Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, GPA) were also not significantly related to the creativity measures. Overall, the results show that attention control accounts for a substantial amount of individual differences in creative performance on both convergent and divergent laboratory tests.</p> <p>As detailed in the Introduction, reaching conclusions about attention from studies where participants perform memory tasks with distractor words is problematic (Ansburg & Hill, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref143">2</reflink>]; Mendelsohn & Griswold, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref144">70</reflink>]). Attention and memory are interwoven in those tasks, and individual differences in memory encoding, retrieval, and memory strategies may covary with creativity, and could account for the findings. The current results strengthen the premise that attention control is one element that drives individual differences in creativity. Attention is commonly studied with dichotic listening methods, which places few demands on memory because participants respond shortly after perceiving the stimulus (~1,000 to 1,200 ms).</p> <p>Our approach examined spatial attention control over blocks of trials lasting several minutes, with experimental manipulation of the focus location (left, right) and range (divided vs. focused left/right). Other work on attention and creativity examined the interplay of global and local levels of the same stimulus (Zabelina & Beeman, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref145">111</reflink>]; Zabelina, Saporta, & Beeman, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref146">112</reflink>]). As a group, these earlier findings and the current results suggest that attention control has a basic role in creativity, although the specific relations to creative performance in the lab vs. achievement in life, as well as convergent vs. divergent thinking were variable across experiments and attention tasks. We found that relations between performance on creativity and attention tests within a testing episode were much stronger than relations of attention to self-reported creative achievements spanning years. Relations between creative achievement and laboratory creativity measures were usually modest and non-significant, which reinforces the conclusion that the attention measures had a much stronger relation to laboratory creativity tests relative to real-world achievements.Putting the misperception and focused attention results together, attention lapses away from a brief laboratory creativity task are likely detrimental in general, regardless of whether the task emphasizes convergent or divergent creativity processes. This was shown by across-the-board negative correlations between misperceptions and the performance measures of creativity. Focused attention across both studies was only negatively related to divergent thinking ability, specifically most of the AUT subscales. The regression beta weights indicate the unique relationship between a given variable after holding all other variables constant. Focused attention and misperceptions had common variance, being negatively related to each other (see Tables 1 and 3), but after controlling for this overlap both had negative relations to divergent creativity scores.</p> <p>This negative relation between focused attention and AUT scores is contrary to the MOCA model prediction that better focused attention is positively related to divergent thinking scores (Zabelina, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref147">110</reflink>]). Working from the model of creativity that has generation and evaluation stages, we speculate that less attentional focus in the generation stage may promote better performance on aspects of creativity not captured by the convergent tests, such as fluency of ideas, idea quality, etc. Future work is needed to directly test this idea, as the present design did not attempt to distinguish generation and evaluation stages. Lastly, if a decrease in focused attention indexed weaker latent inhibition, then focused attention should also negatively predict creative achievement. In the present studies, there was no significant relationship between focused attention and creative achievement, indicating that focused attention may not be indexing latent inhibition.</p> <p>Tests of convergent creativity, such as creative problem solving and especially the RAT, involve searching long-term (semantic) memory to identify correct answers to a given problem. The negative relation of misperception rates to convergent creativity measures may index the likelihood of attention lapses in guiding semantic memory search. Unlike with divergent creativity, individual differences in the ability to focus spatial attention in dichotic listening were not strongly related to convergent creativity test scores. We speculate that the lack of a significant relationship between focused attention and the convergent creativity tests here may be due to a mismatch between testing focused attention in the spatial domain, while the convergent creativity tests relied on the verbal domain. Future work could use verbal materials to assess focused attention abilities, which may reveal a stronger relationship to performance on verbal convergent creativity tasks.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-37">Relations between creative performance and attention measures</hd> <p>There are several reasons why misperceptions may be negatively related to creative performance, and to a lesser degree creative achievement. One possibility is that misperceptions occur during lapses of attention away from the task (Smallwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref148">94</reflink>]; Unsworth, Robison, & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref149">103</reflink>]). Attention lapses away from a task can be triggered internally, as evident by mind wandering, or externally in response to environmental distractions (Smallwood & Schooler, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref150">95</reflink>]). Mind wandering involves task unrelated thoughts that can be subdivided according to whether they were intentional or unintentional (Seli, Risko, & Smilek, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref151">90</reflink>]). Prior work suggests that mind wandering is beneficial to creative performance by enhancing the effect of an incubation period interposed between two episodes of divergent thinking performance (Baird et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref152">4</reflink>]). Performance in creative professions has also been positively related to mind wandering (Gable, Hopper, & Schooler, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref153">45</reflink>]). Other researchers propose strong links between mind wandering and creativity on the basis of both having similar generative and evaluative phases, with the key difference being that creativity, but not mind wandering, must have utility that is recognizable by others (Fox & Beaty, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref154">41</reflink>]). However, some reports found few or no significant relations between the frequency of mind wandering during an incubation period and creative performance (Murray, Liang, Brosowsky, & Seli, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref155">75</reflink>]; Yamaoka & Yukawa, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref156">108</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present study showed a negative correlation between misperceptions and creative performance, but as with most laboratory tests it did not include an incubation period. Similarly, mind wandering was probably discouraged in our tasks because they lasted <3 minutes for the AUT and <5 minutes for CPS and the RAT. This is an important caveat because attention may have different roles in promoting creativity depending on the different phases of the creativity process. One possibility is that mind wandering may promote creativity during incubation periods, but may be detrimental during the verification phase which entails task-focused performance.</p> <p>Misperceptions could also reflect attention capture from distractions in the testing environment. Since the current experiments were not conducted in a laboratory environment, rather in an online environment, it is unknown what environmental distractions the participants may have experienced. Performance on the dichotic listening task precisely replicated results using the same protocols and stimuli but tested in a laboratory (Yurgil & Golob, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref157">109</reflink>]), which suggests that any differences due to online testing were not enough to alter the basic dichotic listening results. Nonetheless, future studies should include a laboratory-based study where the environment can be controlled.</p> <p>Internal mind wandering and external distractions may also interfere with establishing a flow state, which is characterized by intensely focusing on the current task (Csikszentmihalyi, Abuhamdeh, & Nakamura, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref158">26</reflink>]). Past research has shown that flow is positively related to creativity (Byrne, MacDonald, & Carlton, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref159">13</reflink>]; Cseh, Phillips, & Pearson, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref160">25</reflink>]; Schutte & Malouff, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref161">88</reflink>]). The present study did not query subjects about flow states during the experiment, but we note that having pauses between short dichotic listening test blocks is not conducive to establishing flow. Nonetheless, it is an open question on whether misperceptions are negatively related to achieving a flow state.</p> <p>Misperceptions may also be related to working memory abilities, which are linked to creativity (Decaro, Stockum, & Wieth, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref162">28</reflink>]; Lin & Lien, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref163">65</reflink>]; Murray & Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref164">74</reflink>]; Passolunghi, Cornoldi, & De Liberto, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref165">78</reflink>]; Takeuchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref166">99</reflink>]). Larger working memory capacity is positively related to creative problem solving, original ideation, and creative musical improvisation (de Dreu, Nijstad, Baas, Wolsink, & Roskes, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref167">29</reflink>]; Decaro, Stockum, & Wieth, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref168">28</reflink>]; Wiley & Jarosz, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref169">106</reflink>]). Additionally, larger working memory capacity is associated with less distractibility (Colflesh & Conway, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref170">19</reflink>]; Conway, Conwan, & Bunting, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref171">20</reflink>]), and may benefit creative problem solving (de Dreu, Nijstad, Baas, Wolsink, & Roskes, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref172">29</reflink>]; Wiley & Jarosz, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref173">106</reflink>]). Thus, misperceptions might index working memory capacity, with more frequent misperceptions associated with lower working memory capacity. We note that attention control is a core factor in working memory (Draheim, Tsukahara, Martin, Mashburn, & Engle, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref174">32</reflink>]; Kane, Conway, Hambrick, & Engle, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref175">54</reflink>]; Unsworth & Engle, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref176">102</reflink>]), and thus any relations to misperceptions could also reflect attention control. We saw a similar relation, as the focused attention conditions had strong negative correlation to misperceptions. The relation is nuanced, however, because attention lapses and attention control are also statistically separable (Unsworth, Robison, & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref177">103</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-38">Relation between laboratory and everyday life measures</hd> <p>In both experiments, participants reported on their creative achievements outside the lab that accumulated over their lifetime. Misperceptions had variable results with respect to creative achievement, with a significant negative correlation in Experiment 1 that was not replicated in Experiment 2. Similarly, correlations in both experiments were usually minimal between creative performance and creative achievement measures. There are several distinctions that may help explain these data patterns. If the reported creative achievements reflect longstanding interests, they may not relate strongly to attention control in the moment. In contrast, laboratory performance measures of creativity and attention tasks may have more in common with each other, as both reflect one-time performance over the same brief period of time (<60 min).</p> <p>A secondary goal of Experiment 2 was to explore whether the attention and creativity results could be connected to more holistic aspects of the participants by examining self-reported attention and memory in daily life and GPA. Results showed that CFQ measures of self-reported attention and memory in daily life were not significantly correlated to any of the lab-based creativity and attention measures, and were also not associated with creative achievement in life. Older work showed that CFQ scores have little relation to laboratory measures of attention (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref178">68</reflink>]), which was further confirmed by our findings.</p> <p>Many previous studies have separately examined relations between intelligence and attention (Stankov, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref179">96</reflink>]), or intelligence and creativity (Batey, Furnham, & Safiullina, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref180">6</reflink>]; Jauk, Benedek, & Neubauer, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref181">53</reflink>]). Here, we used GPA as rough indicator of intelligence (Coyle, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref182">23</reflink>]) to explore potential interrelations among creativity, attention, and intelligence. The present findings were not enlightening because there were no significant correlations of the creativity measures and GPA, and only one marginally significant correlation with an attention measure. Given the theoretical basis for expecting relations among creativity, attention, and intelligence, we suggest that robust measures of all three constructs (creativity, attention, intelligence) are needed to rigorously assess relations among these three important constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-39">Conclusions</hd> <p>This study found reliable associations between attention control, as gauged by performance on a simple dichotic listening task, and creativity on a set of laboratory tasks. The findings are encouraging with respect to identifying how basic cognitive mechanisms may contribute to creativity. For perspective, creativity and attention are both multidimensional constructs, each having sizable literature devoted to understanding their properties. A simple relationship between attention and creativity seems unlikely. Instead, work that systematically attempts to "map-out" potential attention-creativity relations by testing specific elements within the domains of attention and creativity is likely needed. Creativity is typically considered to be a process with stages, and attention may have different roles at different stages (Wallas, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref183">105</reflink>]). For example, using Wallas' four-stage model of creativity (preparation, incubation, illumination, verification), having low attentional control and experiencing mind wandering may be useful when collecting information about the task (preparation) and generating ideas (illumination) where seemingly irrelevant ideas may prove insightful; however, in the verification stage it may be better to have good attentional control to critically evaluate the products and complete the task.</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-40">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0186774304-41">Supplementary data</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2291631</p> <ref id="AN0186774304-42"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref65" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Preliminary regressions with all subjects (<emph>N</emph> = 308) indicated that the variance inflation factor (VIF, a measure of multicollinearity) was lower in regressions analyzing the composites of misperceptions and attention (mean VIF = 1.73) compared to regressions analyzing the individual measures (e.g., left, right, divided) of misperceptions and attention (mean VIF = 2.28).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186774304-43"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Andersson, M., Reinvang, I., Wehling, E., Hugdahl, K., & Lundervold, A. J. (2008). A dichotic listening study of attention control in older adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49 (4), 299 – 304. doi: 10.1111/J.1467-9450.2008.00634.X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref44" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ansburg, P. I., & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34 (7), 1141 – 1152. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00104-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref25" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baddeley, A. (2011). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 1 – 29. doi: 10.1146/ANNUREV-PSYCH-120710-100422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref74" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. W. Y., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science, 23 (10), 1117 – 1122. doi: 10.1177/0956797612446024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014). Reasoned connections: A dual-process perspective on creative thought. Thinking and Reasoning, 21 (1), 61 – 75. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2014.895915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref29" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (5), 532 – 535. doi: 10.1016/J.LINDIF.2010.04.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <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 (1), 1 – 14. doi: 10.1038/srep10964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2014). Does insight problem solving predict real-world creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8 (3), 287 – 292. doi: 10.1037/a0035727</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beaty, R. E., Seli, P., & Schacter, D. L. (2019). Network neuroscience of creative cognition: Mapping cognitive mechanisms and individual differences in the creative brain. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 22 – 30. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.08.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Briggs, G. G., & Nebes, R. D. (1976). The effects of handedness, family history and sex on the performance of a dichotic listening task. Neuropsychologia, 14 (1), 129 – 133. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(76)90014-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21 (1), 1 – 16. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryden, M. P., Munhall, K., & Allard, F. (1983). Attentional biases and the right-ear effect in dichotic listening. Brain and Language, 18 (2), 236 – 248. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(83)90018-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne, C., MacDonald, R., & Carlton, L. (2003). Assessing creativity in musical compositions: Flow as an assessment tool flow as an assessment tool view project music technology in the classroom view project. Article in British Journal of Music Education, 20 (3), 277 – 290. doi: 10.1017/S0265051703005448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17 (1), 37 – 50. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carson, S., Peterson, J., & Higgins, D. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 85 (3), 499 – 506. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25 (5), 975 – 979. doi: 10.1121/1.1907229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., & Wilson, R. C. (1957). Relations of creative responses to working time and instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53 (2), 82 – 88. doi: 10.1037/h0045461</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christoff, K., Irving, Z. C., Fox, K. C. R., Nathan Spreng, R., & Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2016). Mind-wandering as spontaneous thought: A dynamic framework. Nature Publishing Group, 17 (11), 718 – 731. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colflesh, G. J. H., & Conway, A. R. A. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14 (4), 699 – 703. doi: 10.3758/BF03196824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conway, A., Conwan, N., & Bunting, M. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8 (2), 331 – 335. doi: 10.3758/BF03196169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cortes, R. A., Weinberger, A. B., Daker, R. J., & Green, A. E. (2019). Re-examining prominent measures of divergent and convergent creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 90 – 93. doi: 10.1016/J.COBEHA.2018.09.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory : An integrated framework. New York : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coyle, T. R. (2015). Relations among general intelligence (g), aptitude tests, and GPA: Linear effects dominate. Intelligence, 53, 16 – 22. doi: 10.1016/J.INTELL.2015.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30 (2), 116 – 127. doi: 10.1037/h0076829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cseh, G. M., Phillips, L. H., & Pearson, D. G. (2014). Cognition and emotion flow, affect and visual creativity. Cognitions and Emotion, 29 (2), 281 – 291. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.913553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2014). Flow. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 227 – 238). Dordrecht : Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutting, J. E. (1976). Auditory and linguistic processes in speech perception: Inferences from six fusions in dichotic listening. Psychological Review, 83 (2), 114 – 140. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decaro, M. S., Stockum, C. A. V., & Wieth, M. B. (2016). When higher working memory capacity hinders insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 42 (1), 39 – 49. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Baas, M., Wolsink, I., & Roskes, M. (2012). Working memory benefits creative insight, musical improvisation, and original ideation through maintained task-focused attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (5), 656 – 669. doi: 10.1177/0146167211435795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64 (1), 135 – 168. doi: 10.1146/ANNUREV-PSYCH-113011-143750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (4), 389 – 398. doi: 10.1080/10400410409534550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Draheim, C., Tsukahara, J. S., Martin, J. D., Mashburn, C. A., & Engle, R. W. (2021). A toolbox approach to improving the measurement of attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150 (2), 242 – 275. doi: 10.1037/xge0000783</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Tsukayama, E. (2012). What no child left behind leaves behind: The roles of IQ and self-control in predicting standardized achievement test scores and report card grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (2), 439 – 451. doi: 10.1037/A0026280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Doherty, M. (2021). Measuring divergent thinking originality with human raters and text-mining models: A psychometric comparison of methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15 (4), 645 – 663. doi: 10.1037/aca0000319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncker, K. (1972). On problem solving. Westport,CT : Greenwood.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dykes, M., & McGhie, A. (1976). A comparative study of attentional strategies of schizophrenic and highly creative normal subjects. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128 (1), 50 – 56. doi: 10.1192/bjp.128.1.50</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eskine, K. E., Anderson, A. E., Sullivan, M., & Golob, E. J. (2018). Effects of music listening on creative cognition and semantic memory retrieval. Psychology of Music, 48 (4), 1 – 16. doi: 10.1177/0305735618810792</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76 (5), 378 – 382. doi: 10.1037/h0031619</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florida, R. (2002). The learning region. In M. Gertler & D. Wolfe (Eds.), Innovation and social learning. International political economy series (pp. 159 – 176). London : Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781403907301_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford, J. M., Mathalon, D. H., Whitfield, S., Faustman, W. O., & Roth, W. T. (2002). Reduced communication between frontal and temporal lobes during talking in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 51 (6), 485 – 492. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01335-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, K. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2019). Mind-wandering as creative thinking: Neural, psychological, and theoretical considerations. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 123 – 130. doi: 10.1016/J.COBEHA.2018.10.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franklin, D. W., & Wolpert, D. M. (2011). Computational mechanisms of sensorimotor control. Neuron, 72 (3), 425 – 442. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fugate, C. M., Zentall, S. S., & Gentry, M. (2013). Creativity and working memory in gifted students with and without characteristics of attention deficit hyperactive disorder: Lifting the mask. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57 (4), 234 – 246. doi: 10.1177/0016986213500069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furnham, A., Batey, M., Booth, T. W., Patel, V., & Lozinskaya, D. (2011). Individual difference predictors of creativity in art and science students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6 (2), 114 – 121. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2011.01.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gable, S. L., Hopper, E. A., & Schooler, J. W. (2019). When the muses strike: Creative ideas of physicists and writers routinely occur during mind wandering. Psychological Science, 30 (3), 396 – 404. doi: 10.1177/0956797618820626</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York : McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiscock, M., & Kinsbourne, M. (2011). Attention and the right-ear advantage: What is the connection? Brain and Cognition, 76 (2), 263 – 275. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiscock, M., Kinsbourne, M., Caplan, B., & Swanson, J. M. (1979). Auditory attention in hyperactive children: Effects of stimulant medication on dichotic listening performance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88 (1), 27 – 32. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.88.1.27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoff, E. V., & Carlsson, I. (2002). Shining lights or lone wolves? Creativity and self-image in primary school children. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36 (1), 17 – 40. doi: 10.1002/J.2162-6057.2002.TB01054.X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holland, J., & Astin, A. (1962). The prediction of the academic, artistic, scientific, and social achievement of undergraduates of superior scholastic aptitude. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55 (3), 132 – 143. doi: 10.1037/h0040758</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hugdahl, K. (2003). Dichotic listening in the study of auditory laterality. In K. Hugdahl & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The asymmetrical brain (pp. 441 – 476). MIT Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-02750-012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hugdahl, K., Westerhausen, R., Alho, K., Medvedev, S., Laine, M., & Hämäläinen, H. (2009). Attention and cognitive control: Unfolding the dichotic listening story. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50 (1), 11 – 22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00676.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jauk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). The road to creative achievement: A latent variable model of ability and personality predictors. European Journal of Personality, 28 (1), 95 – 105. doi: 10.1002/per.1941</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21 – 48). New York : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kasof, J. (1997). Creativity and breadth of attention. Creativity Research Journal, 10 (4), 303 – 315. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1004_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Individual differences in creativity. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. V. Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 679 – 697). Wiley Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444343120.ch26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Opening up openness to experience: A four-factor model and relations to creative achievement in the arts and sciences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47 (4), 233 – 255. doi: 10.1002/jocb.33</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13 (1), 1 – 12. doi: 10.1037/a0013688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, S., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84 (2), 248 – 258. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kéri, S. (2011). Solitary minds and social capital: Latent inhibition, general intellectual functions and social network size predict creative achievements. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5 (3), 215 – 221. doi: 10.1037/A0022000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kosslyn, S. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Davidson, R. J., Lovallo, W. R., Spiegel, D., Rose John, R. D., & MacArthur, C. T. (2002). Bridging psychology and biology the analysis of individuals in groups. American Psychologist, 57 (5), 341 – 351. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.5.341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kudrowitz, B., & Dippo, C. (2013). When does a paper clip become a sundial? Exploring the progression of originality in the alternative uses test. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 17 (4), 3 – 18. doi: 10.3233/jid-2013-0018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leopold, D. A., & Logothetis, N. K. (1999). Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3 (7), 254 – 264. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01332-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (1), 1 – 38. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99001776</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, W. L., & Lien, Y. W. (2013). The different role of working memory in open-ended versus closed-ended creative problem solving: A dual-process theory account. Creativity Research Journal, 25 (1), 85 – 96. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2013.752249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (3–4), 295 – 308. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lubow, R. E. (1989). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. 324.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, M. (1983). Cognitive failure: Everyday and laboratory performance. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21 (2), 97 – 100. doi: 10.3758/BF03329964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69 (3), 220 – 232. doi: 10.1037/h0048850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendelsohn, G. A., & Griswold, B. B. (1964). Differential use of incidental stimuli in problem solving as a function of creativity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68 (4), 431 – 436. doi: 10.1037/h0040166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69 (3), 220 – 232. doi: 10.1037/h0048850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merrotsy, P. (2013). A note on big-C creativity and little-c creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25 (4), 474 – 476. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2013.843921</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mumford, M. D. (2001). Something old, something new: Revisiting Guilford's conception of creative problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (3–4), 267 – 276. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1334_04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, M. A., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2001). Attention and working memory in insight problem-solving. Proceedings of Cognitive Science Society, 27 (27), 1571 – 1575. <ulink href="http://www.psych.unito.it/csc/cogsci05/frame/poster/2/f285-murray.pdf">http://www.psych.unito.it/csc/cogsci05/frame/poster/2/f285-murray.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, S., Liang, N., Brosowsky, N., & Seli, P. (2021). What are the benefits of mind wandering to creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. doi: 10.1037/aca0000420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers, J. C., Mock, J. R., & Golob, E. J. (2020). Sensorimotor Integration Can Enhance Auditory Perception. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 1496. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58447-z</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 (1), 36 – 45. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Passolunghi, M. C., Cornoldi, C., & De Liberto, S. (1999). Working memory and intrusions of irrelevant information in a group of specific poor problem solvers. Memory and Cognition, 27 (5), 779 – 790. doi: 10.3758/bf03198531</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, J. B., Smith, K. W., & Carson, S. (2002). Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: Replication and commentary. Personality and Individual Differences, 33 (7), 1137 – 1147. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00004-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why Isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39 (2), 83 – 96. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puryear, J. S., Kettler, T., & Rinn, A. N. (2019). Relating personality and creativity: Considering what and how we measure. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53 (2), 232 – 245. doi: 10.1002/jocb.174</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rawlings, D. (1985). Psychoticism, creativity and dichotic shadowing. Personality and Individual Differences, 6 (6), 737 – 742. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(85)90084-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and Arts, 13 (2), 144 – 152. doi: 10.1037/aca0000227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37 (1), 16 – 22. doi: 10.1177/001698629303700103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 66 – 75. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.652929</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity. In The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). New York : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2020). Connections between curiosity, flow and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109555. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweizer, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Goldhammer, F. (2005). The structure of the relationship between attention and intelligence. Intelligence, 33 (6), 589 – 611. doi: 10.1016/J.INTELL.2005.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seli, P., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2016). On the necessity of distinguishing between unintentional and intentional mind wandering. Psychological Science, 27 (5), 685 – 691. doi: 10.1177/0956797616634068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvia, P. J. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (4), 1012 – 1021. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O'connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects q. Journal of Research in Personality, 43 (6), 1087 – 1090. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T. ... Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2 (2), 68 – 85. doi: 10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smallwood, J., Davies, J. B., Heim, D., Finnigan, F., Sudberry, M., O'Connor, R., & Obonsawin, M. (2004). Subjective experience and the attentional lapse: Task engagement and disengagement during sustained attention. Consciousness and Cognition, 13 (4), 657 – 690. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2004.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2015). The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66 (1), 487 – 518. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stankov, L. (1983). Attention and intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (4), 471 – 490. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.75.4.471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steain, M. 1987. Creativity research at the crossroads: A 1985 perspective. In S. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (1st ed., pp. 417 – 427). Buffalo, NY : Bearly Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stowe, L. M., & Golob, E. J. (2013). Evidence that the Lombard effect is frequency-specific in humans. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134 (1), 640 – 647. doi: 10.1121/1.4807645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). NeuroImage failing to deactivate: The association between brain activity during a working memory task and creativity. NeuroImage, 55 (2), 681 – 687. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12 (1), 97 – 136. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Underwood, B. J. (1975). Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 30 (2), 128 – 134. doi: 10.1037/H0076759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114 (1), 104 – 132. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unsworth, N., Robison, M. K., & Miller, A. L. (2021). Individual differences in lapses of attention: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150 (7), 1303 – 1331. doi: 10.1037/xge0000998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varao-Sousa, T. L., Smilek, D., & Kingstone, A. (2018). In the lab and in the wild: How distraction and mind wandering affect attention and memory. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3 (1), 1 – 9. doi: 10.1186/s41235-018-0137-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York : Harcourt Brace and World.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiley, J., & Jarosz, A. F. (2012). How working memory capacity affects problem solving. In Psychology of learning and motivation - advances in research and theory (Vol. 56, pp. 185 – 227). Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394393-4.00006-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge (1st ed.). New York : Knopf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamaoka, A., & Yukawa, S. (2020). Does mind wandering during the thought incubation period improve creativity and worsen mood? Psychological Reports, 123 (5), 1785 – 1800. doi: 10.1177/0033294119896039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yurgil, K. A., & Golob, E. J. (2010). Neural activity before and after conscious perception in dichotic listening. Neuropsychologia, 48 (10), 2952 – 2958. doi: 10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2010.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabelina, D. 2018. Attention and creativity. In R. E. Jung & O. Vartanian Eds., The Cambridge handbook of the neuroscience of creativity. (Issue 2, pp. 161 – 179). Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabelina, D., & Beeman, M. (2013). Short-term attentional perseveration associated with real-life creative achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1 – 8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabelina, D., Saporta, A., & Beeman, M. (2016). Flexible or leaky attention in creative people? Distinct patterns of attention for different types of creative thinking. Memory and Cognition, 44 (3), 488 – 498. doi: 10.3758/s13421-015-0569-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zmigrod, S., Zmigrod, L., & Hommel, B. (2015). Zooming into creativity: Individual differences in attentional global-local biases are linked to creative thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01647</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zmigrod, S., Zmigrod, L., & Hommel, B. (2019). The relevance of the irrelevant: Attentional distractor-response binding predicts performance in the remote associates task. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13 (1), 15 – 23. doi: 10.1037/aca0000162</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Beatrice N. Ruiz; Lemira V. Esparza; Jeffery R. Mock; Thomas R. Coyle and Edward J. Golob</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib500" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib441" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib480" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib306" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref178"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1493560
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Creativity and Attention Control: An Individual Difference Approach
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Beatrice+N%2E+Ruiz%22">Beatrice N. Ruiz</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5825-165X">0000-0002-5825-165X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lemira+V%2E+Esparza%22">Lemira V. Esparza</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jeffery+R%2E+Mock%22">Jeffery R. Mock</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas+R%2E+Coyle%22">Thomas R. Coyle</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Edward+J%2E+Golob%22">Edward J. Golob</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Creativity+Research+Journal%22"><i>Creativity Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 37(3):406-426.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– 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: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention%22">Attention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention+Control%22">Attention Control</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Auditory+Discrimination%22">Auditory Discrimination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stimuli%22">Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Differences%22">Individual Differences</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2291631
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1040-0419<br />1532-6934
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Prior work suggests that attention is related to creativity, in large part because creative individuals are more likely to attend to and remember irrelevant auditory information. However, the specific role of attention in those studies is unclear because the results may reflect memory processes rather than attention. In two experiments, we used a dichotic listening task to experimentally manipulate attention control (focused, divided) without memory demands. Analyses tested whether individual differences in dichotic listening performance covaried with creative achievement and creative performance on lab-based tests. Results from both studies showed that misperceptions in the dichotic listening tasks were negatively related to creative performance, with mixed results for their relations to creative achievement. There was also a negative relationship between the ability to focus attention and divergent thinking. We speculate that misperceptions may index periods of attentional lapses, which are also likely to limit creativity. Additionally, focused attention may hinder divergent thinking. Taken together, the findings suggest that individual differences in attention control contribute to performance on lab-based creativity tests.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1493560
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1493560
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2291631
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 406
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Attention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention Control
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Auditory Discrimination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Differences
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Creativity and Attention Control: An Individual Difference Approach
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Beatrice N. Ruiz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lemira V. Esparza
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jeffery R. Mock
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas R. Coyle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Edward J. Golob
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1040-0419
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1532-6934
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Creativity Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1