Creativity Study
Creativity is one of the most difficult
mental functions to study. While a
concrete definition remains illusive, it
has been established as a multifaceted
phenomenon (Kitto, Lok & Rudowicz,
1994). One facet that is an important
component of creative potential is
divergent thinking (Vosburg, 1998), this is
the ability to generate several
alternative solutions to a problem. The mental
processing involved occurs in
such a way as to activate as many mental
representations as possible,
maintaining only a weak connection to the original
stimulus (Molle, Marshall,
Wolf, Fehm & Born, 1999). One of the more popular
methods for assessing
creative potential then, is through the administration of
divergent thinking
tests (Mumford, Marks, Connelly , Zaccaro & Johnson,
1998). In these
tests people are requested to generate as many alternative
answers as
possible to a series of ill-defined, open-ended problems (Brown,
1989).
The number of ideas used in answering the problem are counted, and can
be
taken as a performance measure of creative thinking. On the other side of
the
scale is convergent thinking. Here, very strong mental associations
are
maintained which upon activation come to a single conclusion that can
only be
either right or wrong , with a clear connection between the
mental
representation and the original stimulus (Molle et al., 1999). Thus,
two
opposite modes of thinking seem to exist, each serving a different
function and
each having tests that tap into this function. What is of
interest, however is
the fact that little physical evidence has been
collected to support these
models. Finding an actual physical correlate for
these theories is the purpose
if this exploratory research. If creativity
exists, then it should have some
biological foundation. One way to study this
is with the use of the
electroencephalogram (EEG). The dimensional complexity
of the EEG can be used to
establish a differentiation of divergent and
convergent thought. This can occur
because the measure of dimensional
complexity of the EEG activity is sensitive
enough to discriminate cortical
processing invoked by tasks of divergent
creative thinking as compared with
tasks requiring convergent analytical thought
(Molle at al., 1999). According
to Hebb, as stated in Molle et al. (1999), an
assembly of cells represents
the functional processing unit of the brain. These
assemblies represent
closed systems with freer flow of information within a
system, as opposed to
between systems (Molle et al. 1999). It follows from this
that two or more
units can be active at the same time, while maintaining
autonomy. The number
of cell assemblies activated can be taken as an indicator
of how complex the
neuronal computations of the brain are at that precise moment
(Molle et al.
1999). This complexity is manifested in the EEG activity. It can
be assumed
that the dimensional complexity of the EEG indicates the complexity
of neural
dynamics underlying the EEG time series. Studies by
Lutzenberger,
Preissl, and Pulvermuller (1995) as stated by Molle et al.
(1999), suggests that
a task of divergent thinking requires a larger number
of cell assemblies
compared to a task of convergent thinking, where only one
right answer has to be
found. This difference should be illustrated through
the EEG’s dimensional
complexity. The study to be undertaken will look at the
EEG dimensional
complexity of subjects as they perform both divergent thought
tasks and
convergent thought tasks. Of interest is whether a substantial
difference in
recordings will be apparent. Does divergent thinking require
more complex
cortical processing? Is so, in what area of the brain is this
taking place.?
These are the two main questions at the heart of this
study. METHOD Participants
As the aim of this study is to look at normal
brain function, volunteers will be
selected from a first year psychology
class. Fifteen males and fifteen females
will be chosen. Procedure The
experiment will occur in an electrically shielded
room. Participants will sit
in a reclining chair, while the experimenter sits
beside them just outside
their visual field. They will be given four verbal
tasks. Two of the tasks
will require divergent thinking, and two will require
convergent thinking.
The divergent tasks will resemble those administered by
Molle et al
(1999). Logic and arithmetic skills will have to be employed for
the
convergent tasks. These tasks will consist of textbook type problem
solving
questions, where only one right answer exists. In this experiment,
these tasks
are the independent variable. The EEG, which is the dependent
variable of
interest, will be monitored from a separate room. The recording
sites on the
subjects would be on the frontal, central, parietal and
occipital cortical
regions. Half the subjects will do the convergent task
first, and the other half
would do the divergent task first. They will be
given 30s to complete each task.
Between task switches, each subject will
be asked to relax and think of being in
some pleasing environment. EEG
recordings during this time will be used as an
extra comparison to those seen
during the tasks. Subjects will also be asked to
fixate on a point on the
opposite wall. This request will help to rule out
mental activity that
results from visual stimuli. If tasks using divergent and
convergent thought
invoke different cortical processes, this distinction should
be made apparent
by the EEG’s dimensional complexity. The different
frequencies of brain waves
will have varying levels of activity. Divergent
thinking performance will be
scored according to a pre-established order.
Namely, points will be
awarded for the number of responses given. The convergent
task will either be
right or wrong. The scoring is being kept simple because the
experiment is of
an exploratory nature. The primary purpose being to seek out
any sort of
relationship between brain activity and creative thought
processes.
EXPECTED RESULTS Like the study conducted by Molle et al.
(1999), it is expected
that divergent thinking will likely increase the
dimensional complexity of the
EEG in comparison to convergent thinking.
Areas where there was a significant
difference included the frontal, parietal
and occipital regions (Molle et al.,
1999). It is also expected that
divergent thinking will have higher cortical
activity in the central,
parietal and occipital regions in comparison to mental
relaxation (Molle et
al. 1999). A feel for the nature of the biology of creative
thinking is
lacking so far, and is the primary reason for this study.
Preliminary
research of this nature is needed before any specific studies can
be
seriously undertaken. Research into the physiological footing of
creative
thought has the potential to be of great aid to the field of
creative
psychology, lending much needed validity to many of the ideas
being
theorized.
Bibliography
Brown, R.T. (1989). Creativity.
What are we to measure? In J.A. Glover, R.R.
Ronning, & C.R. Reynolds
(Eds.). Handbook of creativity (pp.3-32). New York:
Plenum. Kitto, J.,
Lok, D., & Rudowicz, E. (1994). Measuring creative
thinking: an
activity-based approach. Creativity Research Journal,7, 59-69.
Molle,M.,
Marshall, L., Wolf, B., Horst, L., & Born, J. (1999). EEG
complexity and
performance measures of creative thinking. Psychophysiology, 36,
95-104.
Mumford, M.D., Marks, M.A., Connelly, M.S., Zaccaro, S.J., &
Johnson,
J.F. (1998). Domain-based scoring of divergent-thinking tests:
validation
evidence in an occupational sample. Creativity Research Journal,
11,
151-163. Vosburg, S.K., (1998). The effects of positive and negative
mood on
divergent-thinking performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11,
165-172.