-1- Dynamics of Creativity: Examining the effects of shifting and dwelling on divergent and convergent thinking Pre-registration of Hypotheses and Analyses Plan for ETP-2 Yihan Wu, Wilma Koutstaal University of Minnesota December 15, 2020 Motivation of study Research Question Overview Researchers have found that task instructions encouraging more frequent switching or shifting between different task items (“item switching”) can improve an individual's performance (e.g., the novelty of their responses) on the alternative uses divergent thinking task (Lu et al., 2017) and a comparatively loosely-constrained categorical generation task (Smith et al., 2017). Yet in a 2-item Alternative Uses Task (AUT) in which participants were free to choose when to work on each item, we found that both how frequently participants shifted (shift-count) and how many responses participants on average generated before shifting (dwell-length) predicted AUT originality (Wu & Koutstaal, 2020). Furthermore, both shift- count and dwell-length together were predictive of originality on a composite measure that combined measures of originality from three different independently-assessed creativity tasks (Figural Interpretation Quest, Conceptual Combination, and Torrance Suppose). The contribution of both shift-count and dwell-length to originality on not only within- task but also between-task measures of creativity is conceptually in line with the dual pathway model of creativity, which underscores that flexibility and persistence are both crucial to creative processes (Nijstad et al., 2010). This suggests that a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of different task interventions on originality must consider manipulations of not only how often individuals switch or shift but also their propensity to stay. In the current research we examine the effects of both a cognitive-behavioral intervention that increases item switching, and an intervention that encourages participants to stay longer with one task item until they are no longer actively finding ideas for that item. We also contrast the effects of these interventions on performance with a "baseline" condition, in which participants are allowed to naturally choose if and when to switch between the two task items. Furthermore, we extend our evaluation of the effects of these task interventions to an additional divergent thinking task (Figural Interpretation Quest, Koutstaal & Tran, forthcoming), and to two comparatively convergent tasks that vary in the extent to which they impose external constraints on the problem search space (Anagram and Stem Completion). This manipulation of task-type builds on our earlier research (Wu & Koutstaal, 2020) that used two different 2-item tasks (AUT and Anagram), and where we found that performance (fluency) on a highly structured and tightly constrained convergent thinking -2- Anagram task was predicted only by dwell-length and not by shift-count. We here seek to replicate this earlier finding in a baseline condition, and to further evaluate how an intervention that increases item switching, and an intervention that encourages participants to stay longer with one task item, differentially affect performance depending on the specific constraints and cognitive processing demands of four different tasks. Evaluating the effects of our cognitive- behavioral interventions on performance across four task types using our process-based measures of flexibility and persistence will also complement the recent theoretical and empirical endeavor to compare content-based measures of flexibility and persistence across different tasks (Mekern et al., 2019). More specifically we address four research questions: (1) Our prior research (Wu & Koutstaal, 2020) showed that both flexibility (shift-count) and persistence (dwell-length) together predicted originality on the AUT divergent thinking task under conditions where participants were free to choose when to shift and when to dwell. How does allowing participants to spontaneously choose to shift or to dwell affect AUT originality compared with (a) explicit task instructions to shift and (b) explicit task instructions to dwell? (2) Do any observed effects of the task interventions on the AUT divergent thinking task generalize to a more perceptually-prompted divergent thinking task, that is Figural Interpretation Quest (FIQ)? (3) Our prior research showed that performance (fluency) on a highly structured / tightly constrained convergent thinking Anagram task was predicted only by dwell-length and not by shift-count. How do explicit instructions to shift and to dwell contribute to fluency (i.e., the number of valid responses) on the Anagram task? (4) Do any observed effects of the task interventions on the tightly-constrained word generation task (Anagram) on fluency generalize to a relatively loosely-constrained word generation task (Stem Completion Task)? Two additional exploratory questions that we examine specifically with regards to the two divergent thinking tasks (AUT, FIQ) involve (a) a further measure of verbally assessed divergent thinking, administered under standard naturalistic circumstances (Suppose or Consequences subtests of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Torrance, 1974) and (b) participants’ retrospective metacognitive evaluations of their own thinking processes during the tasks. (5) Can the independently assessed cognitive-behavioral measure of Originality on the Torrance Suppose subtests help to predict – for Originality on the AUT and FIQ divergent thinking tasks – who is more likely to benefit from the instruction to continuously shift or who is likely to benefit from the instruction to dwell? Addressing this question is designed to assess whether individuals who more generally demonstrate higher or lower creative performance when in an unconstrained or naturalistic context benefit more (or less) from the intervention. -3- (6) How do the task interventions (i.e., to shift or to dwell) influence participants’ motivational and affective responses to the divergent thinking tasks as revealed by their retrospective metacognitive reports? Do participants’ metacognitive reports align with the observed condition effects of the intervention on performance? Predictions Research questions 1 and 2: Effects of experimental manipulations on divergent thinking tasks Table 1 summarizes seven different cognitive processes that, based on prior literature and our analysis of the cognitive-behavioral task requirements, might be influenced by the task instructions to shift or to dwell and that may also contribute to the generation of original ideas on the divergent thinking tasks (AUT and FIQ). The first column (cognitive process) in the table provides descriptions of the cognitive processes. The next columns indicate whether the experimental instruction to continuously shift (2nd column) or the instruction to stay (3rd column) is likely to facilitate or impede the generation of original ideas. The last column indicates relevant research findings. From Table 1, it can be seen that there are multiple possible contributors to novel idea generation. For example, the asked-to-stay instruction might not only influence cognitive processes that could benefit performance, such as minimizing output/production interference, but also increase vulnerability to detrimental processes such as becoming fixated on one’s earlier ideas. Comparing the table entries for continuous shift (2nd column) and asked-to-stay (3rd column), it can also be seen that there are nearly equal numbers of pluses and minuses per condition (3 or 4 pluses per condition, and 3 or 4 minuses per condition). If each of the listed cognitive processes plays a similarly weighted role in generating original ideas, then this suggests that the average level of originality in the continuous shifting and asked-to-stay conditions will be similar. If, however, each of the listed cognitive processes is not weighted equivalently, then originality will be differentially boosted. For example, if “overcoming fixation” (e.g., Smith et al., 2017) has a dominant influence on the creative process and more heavily influences performance than the other cognitive contributors, then the benefit of the instruction to continuously switch will be amplified and originality in the continuously shifting condition will significantly exceed that in the asked-to-stay condition. In summary, although recent findings from related research (Lu et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2017; George & Wiley, 2019) would lead to the expectation that average originality in the continuous shift condition will exceed that observed in both the asked-to-stay and baseline conditions, our cognitive task analysis doesn’t unilaterally support this prediction. Based on our cognitive task analysis for the divergent thinking tasks, depending on the relative weighting of different cognitive processes, the continuous shift and asked-to-stay interventions may overall increase or decrease participants’ originality on the AUT and FIQ compared to the baseline condition. -4- Table 1. Cognitive processes that might be influenced by the shifting and staying instructions and thereby impact the originality of idea generation during AUT and FIQ Continuous shift: Asked-to-stay: Cognitive Process Related Research Examples ORIGINALITY ORIGINALITY (1) Avoiding fixation / Moving to a different item might forgetting prior ideas, counteract getting stuck (George & thereby making room for + – Wiley, 2019; Lu et al., 2017; Smith new ideas