View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Stimulating Creativity: Examining the Effectiveness of Four Cognitive-Based Creativity Training Techniques

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Stimulating Creativity: Examining the Effectiveness of Four Cognitive-Based Creativity Training Techniques
Language: English
Authors: Gu, Xiaojing (ORCID 0000-0001-5842-3821), Ritter, Simone M., Delfmann, Lea R., Dijksterhuis, Ap
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. Sep 2022 56(3):312-327.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Creative Thinking, Creativity, Thinking Skills, Training, Cognitive Processes, Training Methods
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.531
ISSN: 0022-0175
2162-6057
Abstract: Creative thinking is needed to thrive in our fast-changing world. It has been shown that creative thinking skills can be enhanced through training. Whereas previous research has mainly focused on examining the overall effectiveness of comprehensive creativity training programs, this study examined the effectiveness of four cognitive-based training techniques (SCAMPER, random connection, schema violation, and simple ideation), each with the aim of training specific cognitive processes underlying creativity. The effectiveness of the four techniques was tested using a pre-posttest between-subjects design. The participants were assigned to one of the four creativity training conditions or a control condition and practiced each training technique for approximately 20 min. Before and after training, the participants' creative performance was measured with divergent thinking (Alternative Uses Task; fluency, flexibility, originality, creativity, usefulness) and convergent thinking (Remote Associates Test) tasks. The results showed marginal to significant improvements on several key indicators of divergent thinking, but none of the techniques led to improvement in convergent thinking. Specifically, the SCAMPER technique targeting conceptual expansion marginally improved idea originality, while the random connection technique targeting conceptual combination and the schema violation technique targeting cognitive flexibility seemed to facilitate idea fluency and idea flexibility. No improvement was observed for the simple ideation technique and the control condition.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1349922
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHt448f1B8WsViV2bVXXMnWAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDILmesWFh9cvYEyXMwIBEICBm6HCr7d7-lw7PH5WR6kd_vtKvcm1LSJJ_XI-hjDrACkGtJWxBHJwmx9xL6epfYwf5E1atqU8asLGrGg8wKBkKEb4qAAeTZRVOBE7qNAc66SXwu3WQuVOoaL3UX-wYCNF1hrWQt0RoTtuOLLKJwuSoPlp-iRwwcJ1Pb0IKsSs0AtOYNW2DO_WS7YlEUO1B09oN7nuSrV-J0CWCqU8
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159376641;3u701sep.22;2022Sep30.02:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159376641-1">Stimulating Creativity: Examining the Effectiveness of Four Cognitive‐based Creativity Training Techniques </title> <p>Creative thinking is needed to thrive in our fast‐changing world. It has been shown that creative thinking skills can be enhanced through training. Whereas previous research has mainly focused on examining the overall effectiveness of comprehensive creativity training programs, this study examined the effectiveness of four cognitive‐based training techniques (SCAMPER, random connection, schema violation, and simple ideation), each with the aim of training specific cognitive processes underlying creativity. The effectiveness of the four techniques was tested using a pre–posttest between‐subjects design. The participants were assigned to one of the four creativity training conditions or a control condition and practiced each training technique for approximately 20 min. Before and after training, the participants' creative performance was measured with divergent thinking (Alternative Uses Task; fluency, flexibility, originality, creativity, usefulness) and convergent thinking (Remote Associates Test) tasks. The results showed marginal to significant improvements on several key indicators of divergent thinking, but none of the techniques led to improvement in convergent thinking. Specifically, the SCAMPER technique targeting conceptual expansion marginally improved idea originality, while the random connection technique targeting conceptual combination and the schema violation technique targeting cognitive flexibility seemed to facilitate idea fluency and idea flexibility. No improvement was observed for the simple ideation technique and the control condition.</p> <p>Keywords: creativity; creative process; cognitive‐based training techniques; divergent thinking; convergent thinking</p> <p>Creativity is commonly defined as the ability to generate original and useful ideas or products (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). It is a valuable resource in achieving social and economic growth (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Runco, 2004) and pursuing personal and professional success (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995), and it is related to mental and emotional health (Conner, DeYoung, & Silvia, 2018; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). In response to the importance of creativity, a great number of creativity training programs have been developed over the past decades (Ma, 2006; Rose & Lin, 1984; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004a, 2004b; Torrance, 1972). Systematic meta‐analysis studies have suggested that creativity training programs are generally effective across various measurement criteria, settings, and age groups (Ma, 2006; Scott et al., 2004a). While the earlier research has provided support for the effectiveness of creativity training (Scott et al., 2004a, 2004b), the focus has mainly been on examining comprehensive training programs that are comprised of various training techniques rather than focusing on any specific technique (Ma, 2006; Scott et al., 2004a, 2004b). Consequently, it remains unclear whether the combined effects of techniques lead to improvement or whether one technique within a package is sufficient for training effectiveness.</p> <p>There is also a lack of evidence on the effects of different training techniques on particular indicators of creativity. The meta‐analysis by Ma (2006) attempted to examine the effectiveness of different training techniques (e.g., attitude training, synectics, simple ideation training). However, their analyses were based on a small number of studies that differ not only in the employed techniques but also in training duration and design. Therefore, questions such as which training technique is more beneficial for generating original ideas and which training technique enhances cognitive flexibility remain unanswered. In particular, an interesting but scarcely examined question is whether training techniques that aim to train specific cognitive processes that underlie creativity differ in the type of creative performance they enhance.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-2">The Current Study</hd> <p>The current study aimed to fill this research gap by examining the training effects of four creativity training techniques: SCAMPER, random connection, schema violation, and simple ideation. These techniques have been frequently incorporated into creativity training programs that have been shown to be effective in enhancing creativity (Gu, Dijksterhuis, & Ritter, 2019; Ma, 2006; Osborn, 1953; Ritter & Mostert, 2017; Scott et al., 2004a, 2004b). In addition, all these techniques employ cognitive approaches. As demonstrated by Scott et al. (2004a), cognitive‐based trainings that provide cognitive strategies or heuristics for creative thinking are more successful than other training approaches. Moreover, and importantly, these techniques are assumed to train different core cognitive process(es) that underlie creativity. Earlier findings suggest that the creative thinking process involves a variety of cognitive processes, such as semantic association (Mednick, 1962; Ward, 2007; Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999) and flexible thinking (Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, 2010; Runco, 2004), through which creative ideas arise. Hence, individual differences in creative performance can partially be explained by variations in how efficiently the cognitive processes underlying creativity are employed (Botella, Nelson, & Zenasni, 2019; Mumford & McIntosh, 2017; Ward et al., 1999). This also indicates that when conducting creativity training, techniques aiming to train different cognitive processes that underlie creativity may function differently. Additionally, they may be associated with different creativity‐task performance outcomes. The chosen techniques of this study and the assumed underlying cognitive processes are explained in more detail in the following section.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-3">SCAMPER</hd> <p>The SCAMPER technique is a creative problem‐solving technique that helps generate ideas by tackling a product or problem from seven different angles: <emph>substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to another use, eliminate</emph>, and <emph>rearrange</emph> (Osborn, 1953). <emph>Substitute</emph> focuses on replacing parts of a product with alternatives; <emph>combine</emph> focuses on integrating the features or components of a product with another product; <emph>adapt</emph> focuses on changing the parts or characteristics of a product; <emph>modify</emph> focuses on adding or changing the shape, color or other traits of a product; <emph>put to another use</emph> focuses on how to adopt a product for a different purpose; <emph>eliminate</emph> focuses on removing parts or components of a product; and <emph>rearrange</emph> focuses on reversing or assembling parts of a product differently. The SCAMPER technique was initially designed to encourage divergent thinking (De Bono, 1992), but it is also used for creative problem solving and product design (Scott et al., 2004a; Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2009). Empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of the SCAMPER technique is still limited. Ozyaprak (2016) found that 6 weeks of SCAMPER training significantly increased undergraduates' divergent thinking performance. This study, however, used a total score of divergent thinking, which does not allow to draw any conclusions about the particular types of creative performance that were enhanced. Moreover, it did not employ a control group.</p> <p>It is assumed that one basic cognitive process that is trained by the SCAMPER technique is conceptual expansion, which is defined as the ability to develop new ideas or concepts by adapting existing ones (Ward, 1994; Ward et al., 1999). Ward et al. (1999, p. 198) proposed that conceptual expansion "is the human capacity to accumulate knowledge and to build new ideas on what has come before that underlies our enormous generativity and makes creativity possible." In one study, Ward (1994) asked the participants to draw animals living on another planet. He found that the more participants' drawings deviated from the typical features of Earth animals (e.g., bilateral symmetry, presence of sense organs), the more creative the drawings were rated. In the SCAMPER technique, angles such as "adapt," "modify," and "rearrange" emphasize extending or refining partial properties of the existing product and thus foster the conceptual expansion process. Moreover, the SCAMPER technique may tap into the cognitive process of conceptual combination (see below) as some approaches, such as "combine" and "rearrange," aim to form new products by integrating or associating different parts of the existing products.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-4">Random Connection</hd> <p>The random connection technique is used to generate ideas by combining elements that have not previously been associated (de Bono, 1992; Malycha & Maier, 2017; Ritter & Mostert, 2017). It entails three processes: first, thinking of a random object; second, thinking of different characteristics of that object; and third, applying those characteristics to solve a problem at hand. The random connection technique forces the participants to search for remote associations instead of retrieving familiar and closely situated associations (Smith & Ward, 2012). Scott et al. (2004a) concluded that training approaches using conceptual combination techniques were more beneficial to stimulating creative performance than other techniques. For example, Malycha and Maier (2017) found that the random connection technique (or what they called the random‐input technique) significantly increased participants' originality and marginally increased their fluency, but no significant effect was observed on flexibility. However, there are also studies that have revealed no positive effect of the random connection technique on stimulating creativity (Svensson, Norlander, & Archer, 2002).</p> <p>The random connection technique is employed to tap into the cognitive process of conceptual combination where separate or unrelated concepts are combined to create new ones (de Bono, 1992; Malycha & Maier, 2017). According to Mednick (1962, p.221), creative thinking is, in essence, a process of the "forming of associative elements into new combinations which either meet specified requirements or are in some way useful." He further assumed that highly creative people tend to build broader associations between concepts, while less creative people tend to associate closer concepts. Evidence from other research has shown that the ability to form novel conceptual combinations not only increases the number of ideas but also facilitates idea originality (Hunter, Bedell‐Avers, Hunsicker, Mumford, & Ligon, 2008; Scott, Lonergan, & Mumford, 2005). The recent research by Benedek, Jurisch, Koschutnig, Fink, and Beaty (2020) showed that there is a significant correlation between participants' performance on a conceptual combination task and on a divergent thinking task with regard to creativity and the number of ideas generated.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-5">Schema Violation</hd> <p>Schema violation refers to experiences or events that are inconsistent with our common beliefs or conventions (Gocłowska, Baas, Crisp, & De Dreu, 2014; Ritter et al., 2012). It is assumed that schema violations reduce mental fixation and increase the ability to switch attention from mainstream ideas to remote and original ideas (Ritter et al., 2012). The research has shown that exposure to schema‐violating scenarios (e.g., a snowman in a desert) improves creative performance, specifically cognitive flexibility (Cheng, Leung, & Wu, 2011; Gocłowska et al., 2014).</p> <p>As mentioned above, the schema violation technique is assumed to mainly foster cognitive flexibility, which refers to the ability to flexibly shift between multiple tasks, mental sets, or attention (Bennett & Müller, 2010; Diamond, 2006). Cognitive flexibility enables people to overcome mental fixation, inhibit the retrieval of "old" ideas, and switch between perspectives, which is considered important for generating original ideas (Nijstad et al., 2010; Runco & Okuda, 1991). Previous research has demonstrated that cognitive flexibility is positively related to creativity (George & Wiley, 2019; Gilhooly, Fioratou, Anthony, & Wynn, 2007; Zabelina & Robinson, 2010). In George and Wiley's study (2019), the participants were instructed to generate many different uses of either a single item or a group of ten items. Their results showed that the participants with higher cognitive flexibility tended to have a stronger capacity to inhibit common ideas and produce more original ideas.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-6">Simple Ideation</hd> <p>The simple ideation technique requires the generation of many different ideas. Unlike the techniques introduced above, the simple ideation technique does not provide any instructions but encourages the participants to freely generate ideas using their own cognitive strategies. Hence, instead of a unique cognitive process, different cognitive processes may be trained while practicing the simple ideation technique. It is suggested that practicing idea generation helps participants develop a creative mindset and the general creative thinking skills that are involved in many creative endeavors (Ma, 2006; Scott et al., 2004a). However, existing literature has revealed mixed findings for the effectiveness of simple ideation techniques (e.g., Benedek, Fink, & Neubauer, 2006; Kleibeuker et al., 2017). In this study, we aimed to re‐examine the effectiveness of the simple ideation technique in enhancing creativity and to compare its effectiveness with that of techniques emphasizing specific creative processes as well as with a control condition.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-7">Creativity Assessment and Study Hypotheses</hd> <p>This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of the training techniques on two important aspects of creative thinking: divergent thinking (performance on the AUT, fluency assessment, flexibility, creativity, originality, and usefulness) and convergent thinking (performance on the RAT). While divergent thinking tasks were used as creativity measures in most of the earlier studies (Ma, 2006; Scott el., 2004a), limited knowledge has been gained about the effectiveness of creativity trainings on convergent thinking tasks. Both divergent thinking and convergent thinking are important for creative thinking, and they work together and complement each other to obtain creative problem solution (Guilford, 1967; Kim & Pierce, 2013).</p> <p>Divergent thinking is the ability to think of many novel ideas from multiple perspectives (Guilford, 1967; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). It is often operationalized in a spontaneous, free‐flowing, and nonlinear thought process for finding original ideas in a diverse semantic network (Beaty, Silvia, Nusbaum, Jauk, & Benedek, 2014; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). However, divergent thinking also involves a goal‐directed, controlled process to guide the search direction and the search strategy (Beaty et al., 2014; Forthmann, Wilken, Doebler, & Holling, 2016). Research has shown that fluid intelligence and executive control are positively related to divergent thinking (Benedek & Fink, 2019; Forthmann et al., 2016; Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011). Gilhooly et al. (2007) more specifically found that executively demanding strategies (e.g., property, broad use, and disassembly) usually occur in a later stage of idea generation and are more likely to produce novel ideas. In contrast, convergent thinking is the ability to find a single "correct" answer that best fits a given problem (Cropley, 2006; Kim & Pierce, 2013). It is generally thought to entail logical and analytical thinking processes, controlled association, and inhibition of seemingly irrelevant information (Cropley, 2006; Kilgour & Koslow, 2009). Moreover, certain cognitive processes that underlie divergent thinking are also involved in convergent thinking. For example, conceptual combination, which is essential to generate novel ideas, also benefits convergent thinking in that people who score higher in combining unrelated concepts perform better in a convergent thinking task (Benedek et al., 2020). It has been found that fluid intelligence has a positive relationship with convergent thinking as it requires high levels of cognitive control to flexibly search for appropriate responses (Chermahini & Hommel, 2010).</p> <p>This study was based on a pretest–posttest between‐subjects design including four creativity training technique conditions and a control condition. The participants in the control condition engaged in memory training. Before and after the training, the differences in the participants' creative performance within each training condition and between the training conditions were investigated. The AUT and the RAT were used to measure the participants' creative performance on divergent and convergent thinking. We hypothesized an increase in creative performance from pretest to posttest for the participants who practiced the creativity training techniques but not for the participants in the control condition. Moreover, we hypothesized that the creativity training techniques aiming to train different cognitive processes underlying creativity differ in their effectiveness in enhancing specific creativity indicators.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159376641-9">Participants</hd> <p>Before data collection, a priori power analysis using G power (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) revealed that a minimum of 196 participants was required to obtain a statistical power of 0.80 (with a medium effect size of <emph>f</emph> = 0.25 and an alpha probability value of <emph>p</emph> = .05). We recruited 209 participants to compensate for potential dropouts and missing data. The participants were recruited via the university research participation system (SONA) and via flyers on campus. We manually assigned the participants to one of the five training conditions based on the order in which they had signed up. This is a traditional method of random assignment (McBurney & White, 2009). That is, participant 1 = condition 1, participant 2 = condition 2, participant 3 = condition 3, participant 4 = condition 4, participants 5 = condition 5, and participant 6 = condition 1. Each participant received a subject code as his or her identity in the study and as a means of accessing the creativity pre/post tests and the training, which were implemented online. Following the preregistered exclusion criteria (see the preregistration link below), four participants (random connection, <emph>n</emph> = 2; schema violation, <emph>n</emph> = 1; control condition, <emph>n</emph> = 1) were excluded from data analysis. To be specific, one participant took the pretest twice and had no posttest data, two participants did not participate in either the pretest or posttest because they typed in an incorrect subject code, and one participant did not take the pretest and posttest seriously (i.e., typed in nonsense letters). The remaining 205 participants were included in the data analysis (53 male, 151 female, 1 participant did not indicate gender; average age of 23.5 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.18). The participants were mainly university students majoring in psychology (45.9%), science (15.6%), arts and culture (9.8%), economics and business (8.8%), linguistics (5.9%), artificial intelligence (4.4%), and others (e.g., education, law and politics; 4.9%). A total of 4.9% of the participants were non‐university students.</p> <p>This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences of Radboud University (approval code: ECSW‐2018‐106). The participants provided written informed consent for participation. After participation, they were rewarded with 0.5 course credits or €5. The method, materials, and data analysis plan of this study were preregistered on the Open Science Framework (see https://osf.io/mnafh).</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-10">Procedure</hd> <p>This study was conducted in a lab setting (a small room equipped with a chair, a table, and a computer), and both the pre/post tests and the training were administered using the online survey platform Qualtrics. Each training condition was assigned a unique survey link that provided access to the study with the participants' personal subject code. The participants first performed the pretest tasks, which included the Alternative Uses Task (AUT) and the Remote Associates Test (RAT), each lasting for 3 min. In addition, demographic information (i.e., age, gender, and study) was collected in the pretest. Upon completion of the pretest, the participants were automatically redirected to the assigned training condition. During the training phase, the participants in each condition practiced the training individually for approximately 20 min during which the experimenter was not involved. The training procedure was nearly identical across all creativity training conditions. Each training began with a brief example illustration of the training technique, and the participants were then asked to practice the technique themselves. In the control condition, the participants received no creativity training technique, but practiced memory training instead. After completing the training, the participants performed the posttest, which entailed a different version of the AUT and the RAT. As in the pretest, the tasks lasted approximately 3 min each. In total, the study took approximately 30 min. Although most participants were not native English speakers, all had adequate English proficiency as English is the main language in their study program. Therefore, the creativity tests and the training were conducted in English.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-11">Experimental Conditions</hd> <p>Each participant practiced one of the creativity training techniques or the memory training exercises described below. For the creativity training conditions, the duration for illustrating a technique was controlled such that the participants could not move forward until a fixed amount of time had expired (see Table 1). The fixed time was dependent on the complexity and number of steps in each training technique and ensured that the participants had sufficiently grappled with the training techniques. The duration for practicing a creativity technique/memory exercise was flexible, and the participants were allowed to move forward before a time limit was reached. Qualtrics automatically recorded the overall training duration in each condition.</p> <p>1 TableDemographics and Training Duration per Training Condition</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="middle"><tr><th align="left">Training condition</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Age</th><th align="left">Gender</th><th align="left">Total training duration (min)</th><th align="left">Technique illustration fixed time (min)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Male</th><th align="left">Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">SCAMPER</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="char" char=".">22.9</td><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">32</td><td align="char" char=".">15.4</td><td align="left">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Random connection</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="char" char=".">24.4</td><td align="left">14</td><td align="left">27</td><td align="char" char=".">16.3</td><td align="left">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Schema violation</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="char" char=".">23.3</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">34</td><td align="char" char=".">15.5</td><td align="left">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Simple ideation</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="char" char=".">23.2</td><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">30</td><td align="char" char=".">16.0</td><td align="left">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control condition</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="char" char=".">23.6</td><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">28</td><td align="char" char=".">14.2</td><td align="left">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note</p> <p>2 The total duration to illustrate the three scenarios in the schema violation condition is 6 min, with each taking 2 min.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-12">SCAMPER</hd> <p>The participants were first provided with an explanation of the above‐described SCAMPER technique with a focus on the seven angles that can be adopted to solve problems (<emph>substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to another use, eliminate</emph>, and <emph>rearrange)</emph>. The explanation was followed by an example demonstrating how to improve the function of a table using the seven angles. For example, adding hangers to table legs (i.e., by employing the <emph>combine</emph> angle to think of new ideas) allows people hang their jacket or bag when taking a seat at a table. After having seen the example, the participants were asked to apply all seven angles to improve a common product (i.e., a tea spoon) within 10 min.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-13">Random Connection</hd> <p>The participants were first given an explanation of the random connection technique stressing that idea generation can benefit from randomly combining elements that have not been associated before. Thereafter, the technique was further illustrated with an example, specifically, to design a new type of sun cream by employing three steps. First, thinking of an unrelated object to associate with, for example a ballpoint pen. Second, thinking of as many characteristics of this object as possible such as multiple colors and a roll‐on function. Third, applying these characteristics to the sun cream. For instance, one could design a colored sun cream to indicate which skin parts are already covered with sun cream. Finally, the participants were asked to employ the random connection technique to solve two more problems: "design a kid's bed that helps parents get their kid to go to bed easily" and "design a new type of thermos." Each task had a time limit of 5 min.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-14">Schema Violation</hd> <p>The participants were exposed to three schema‐violating scenarios, which required solving problems in unconventional ways. In the first scenario, the participants were presented with words that were readable only when reflected in a mirror (e.g., "γɈiviɈɒɘɿɔ" reflected in a mirror is "creativity"). After that, they were asked to practice mirrored writing themselves. In the second scenario, the participants were presented with examples of doing things unconventionally, for example, brushing their teeth with their nondominant hand. Then, the participants were encouraged to think of things they could do differently to break their daily routine. In the third scenario, the participants were first shown a video displaying an unusual way to fold a T‐shirt. Thereafter, they were asked to perform this schema‐violating activity with a T‐shirt themselves. For each scenario, the participants had 4 min to practice the exercise.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-15">Simple Ideation</hd> <p>The participants were informed that one way to generate creative ideas is to come up with as many ideas as possible. Thereafter, the participants were provided with a challenge (i.e., "How can you extinguish a candle without using your mouth?") and with different ideas of how to solve this challenge (e.g., "you can step on it with a shoe," or "pour fluid on it"). After the example, the participants were instructed to think of as many unusual solutions as possible to two more problems: "How can you pick up a paper from the floor without using your hands?," and "How can you stop bees from getting inside through an open window?" The participants had 6 min to solve each problem.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-16">Memory Training</hd> <p>In the control condition, the participants were directly guided to practice three memory training exercises. For each exercise, the participants were asked to remember a list of 10 shapes for 3 min, and then they had another 3 min to recall the shapes in a different order as presented (see Appendix S1).</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-17">Divergent and Convergent Thinking Measures</hd> <p>The AUT was used to measure divergent thinking, and the RAT was used to measure convergent thinking. Two versions of each task were used and counterbalanced between the pretest and posttest and across participants. The parallel forms reliability tests showed that the reliability coefficient for the two versions of the AUT was 0.699, and the reliability coefficient for the two versions of the RAT was 0.575. A psychology undergraduate student who was familiar with the field of creativity worked as the main rater to score the participants' responses. The rater was blind to the training conditions and whether an idea was generated in the pretest or posttest. Below is a detailed description of the scoring criteria of the AUT and the RAT.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-18">AUT</hd> <p>In the AUT, the participants had to think of as many different uses of an object as possible (Guilford, 1967). The objects used in this study were a brick (Version A) and a newspaper (Version B). The participants' performance was measured using five indicators of creativity: fluency, flexibility, creativity, originality, and usefulness. Prior to scoring, the rater was provided with a definition of the scoring criteria (e.g., creativity (originality and usefulness were stressed), originality (uniqueness), usefulness (feasibility)) and completed practice scoring. Unfinished entries (e.g., build a) and/or very vague ideas (e.g., create something) were excluded from the scoring. Fluency is the total number of ideas generated. Flexibility is the total number of categories to which ideas can be assigned. Based on the ideas generated in the pretest and posttest, the authors created a list of categories for the brick task and the newspaper task and then asked the rater to assign the participants' ideas into the predefined categories (see Appendix S1). In total, there were 34 semantic categories in the brick task such as creating simple buildings (e.g., building a house, building a wall); playing games (e.g., using it as a Lego brick, playing football with it); making paintings/drawings (e.g., using it to draw, painting with them); and using it as a container (e.g., using it as a plant pot, making a candle holder). There were also 34 categories in the newspaper task such as reading (e.g., reading news, reading); playing balls (e.g., forming a ball and playing, making a ball and throwing); wrapping presents (e.g., wrapping a gift); and making paintings/drawings (e.g., using it to write/color/sketch). The category assignment can be illustrated with a fictive example: For the brick task, a participant who lists the ideas "build a house, build a wall" scores one on flexibility as the two ideas belong to one category "creating simple buildings," whereas another participant who lists the ideas "build a house, use it as a plant pot" receives a flexibility score of two as the two ideas belong to two categories: "creating simple buildings" and "using as a container." Creativity was scored based on the subjective evaluation of the creativity of an idea. The rater was briefly given the explanation that a creative idea should be both original and useful, and no other instruction was provided. Originality refers to the degree of novelty and uniqueness of an idea. Usefulness refers to the degree of effectiveness and practicality of an idea. Each idea was rated separately on creativity, originality, and usefulness based on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 "not at all [e.g., creative]" to 5 "very [e.g., creative]." The interrater reliability was obtained by having a second rater (i.e., the first author) scoring a random selection of 30% of participants' ideas on creativity, originality, and usefulness. The interrater reliability (two‐way random, interrater consistency) between the two raters was excellent for all three indicators: creativity ICC = .95, originality ICC = .94, and usefulness ICC = .86. Based on the scores of the main rater, a mean score of creativity, originality, and usefulness mean score was calculated separately by dividing the sum of the scores by the number of ideas generated (i.e., the fluency score).</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-19">RAT</hd> <p>The RAT requires one to think of a fourth word that can be associated with each of three presented words (Mednick, 1962). For example, for a three‐word combination "sea, home, stomach," the answer is sick: seasick, homesick, stomach sick. The word sets used were taken from a study by Bowden and Jung‐Beeman (2003). Each version of the RAT contained six sets of three‐word combinations, which the participants had to solve in 3 min. The number of solved RAT sets was counted.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-20">Analysis Plan</hd> <p>This study aimed to examine whether the effectiveness of different creativity training techniques on enhancing the participants' creativity differed from each other and the control condition. Hence, a doubly multivariate analysis (MANOVA) with repeated measures was performed to determine whether there were any differences in different creativity indicators over time or between training conditions. This analysis, also known as a doubly multivariate profile analysis, controls for errors caused by multiple testing for repeated measures designs with more than one dependent variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Post hoc ANOVA contrasts analyses based on the pretest–posttest difference scores were conducted to examine whether the training conditions differed significantly in the gain scores from the pretest to posttest. Moreover, paired t‐tests were conducted to examine whether within a training condition the participants' creative performance changed significantly from pretest to posttest. For the main effects and the interaction effects, effect sizes (η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups>) were calculated. According to Cohen (1988), an effect size of η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .01 is a small effect, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .06 is a medium effect, and η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .14 is a large effect.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-21">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159376641-22">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p>We first examined whether there were differences between the training conditions with regard to demographics and training duration (Table 1). No significant differences between the training conditions were found with respect to gender distribution, χ²(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>) = 5.24, <emph>p</emph> = .263, or mean age, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>, 200) = 0.739, <emph>p</emph> = .566. Regarding training duration, there was a significant difference between conditions, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>, 200) = 9.70, <emph>p</emph> < .001. The post hoc analyses revealed that the participants in the control condition spent less time practicing the memory training than the creativity training conditions, but there was no difference in time spent on the training among the participants in the four creativity training conditions.</p> <p>Furthermore, Pearson correlations were calculated between all of the indicators of the AUT and the RAT. As shown in Table 2, significantly high correlations (>.99) were observed between the creativity and originality of the AUT, suggesting a problem of multicollinearity. Hence, only the mean originality score was included in the data analysis to meet the appropriateness of a MANOVA.</p> <p>2 TableCorrelations between Variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th><th align="left">9</th><th align="left">10</th><th align="left">11</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">AUT</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Fluency_Pretest</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Flexibility_Pretest</td><td align="left">.877**</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Creativity_Pretest</td><td align="left">.034</td><td align="left">.169*</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Originality_Pretest</td><td align="left">.047</td><td align="left">.183**</td><td align="left">.993**</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Usefulness_Pretest</td><td align="left">−.171*</td><td align="left">−.304**</td><td align="left">.051</td><td align="left">.035</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Fluency_ Posttest</td><td align="left">.534**</td><td align="left">.511**</td><td align="left">−.050</td><td align="left">−.045</td><td align="left">−.241**</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Flexibility_ Posttest</td><td align="left">.485**</td><td align="left">.484**</td><td align="left">.016</td><td align="left">.015</td><td align="left">−.278**</td><td align="left">.905**</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Creativity_ Posttest</td><td align="left">−.115</td><td align="left">−.082</td><td align="left">.271**</td><td align="left">.276**</td><td align="left">.080</td><td align="left">.043</td><td align="left">.088</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Originality_ Posttest</td><td align="left">−.126</td><td align="left">−.089</td><td align="left">.264**</td><td align="left">.269**</td><td align="left">.084</td><td align="left">.031</td><td align="left">.072</td><td align="left">.991**</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Usefulness_Posttest</td><td align="left">−.267**</td><td align="left">−.298**</td><td align="left">.089</td><td align="left">.073</td><td align="left">.359**</td><td align="left">−.109</td><td align="left">−.137</td><td align="left">.282**</td><td align="left">.267**</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">RAT</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11. RAT_Pretest</td><td align="left">−.001</td><td align="left">.028</td><td align="left">.002</td><td align="left">.004</td><td align="left">.088</td><td align="left">.070</td><td align="left">.074</td><td align="left">.076</td><td align="left">.083</td><td align="left">−.007</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12. RAT_Posttest</td><td align="left">.161*</td><td align="left">.163*</td><td align="left">.054</td><td align="left">.068</td><td align="left">.028</td><td align="left">.038</td><td align="left">.032</td><td align="left">−.051</td><td align="left">−.049</td><td align="left">−.048</td><td align="left">.400**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Note</item> <item>4 *<emph>p</emph> < .05, **<emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0159376641-23">Main Results</hd> <p>The results of the MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for measurement time, Wilks' λ = .838, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>, 196) = 7.56, <emph>p</emph> < .001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .162, and a significant interaction effect between measurement time and training condition, Wilks' λ = .843, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>, 651) = 1.72, <emph>p</emph> = .027, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .042. There was no main effect for training condition, Wilks' λ = .931, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>, 651) = .713, <emph>p</emph> = .815, and η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .018. Subsequent univariate ANOVAs revealed significant interaction effects in fluency, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>, 200) = 2.46, <emph>p</emph> = .047, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .047, flexibility, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>, 200) = 2.82, <emph>p</emph> = .026, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .053, and a marginally significant interaction effect in originality, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>, 200) = 2.20, <emph>p</emph> = .070, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .042. However, no significant differences were found in usefulness, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>, 200) = .170, <emph>p</emph> = .954, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = .003, and the RAT, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>, 200) = 1.53, <emph>p</emph> = .194, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups>= .030. The results are shown in Figure 1. Below, we reported the results of post hoc analyses for creativity indicators with significant interaction effects. The main effects of measurement time and training condition can be found in the Supplemental Materials (Appendix S1).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01sep22/jocb531-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb531-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 AUT and RAT performance in pretest and posttest per training condition.Note. Adjusted p‐values are reported. *p < .005, ***p < .001, and +p = .007." /> </p> <p></p> <p>As the interaction effects of fluency and flexibility were significant, post hoc analyses on the two indicators were conducted to examine the specific increase differences among the training conditions, and the specific differences within each specific training condition, respectively. As the interaction effect of originality approached significance, follow‐up comparisons on originality were also carried out. A Bonferroni adjusted <emph>p</emph>‐value of <emph>p</emph> < .05/10 = .005 was applied to control for multiple comparisons (i.e., there were ten comparisons among the five training conditions). The one‐way ANOVAs showed no significant differences between any training conditions in fluency and originality. Regarding flexibility, the participants who practiced the random connection technique had a larger increase in flexibility than those in the control condition, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib200" id="ref12">200</reflink>) = 2.85, <emph>p</emph> = .005. In addition, a marginally larger increase in flexibility was observed in the participants practicing the random connection technique than in the participants practicing the simple ideation technique, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib200" id="ref13">200</reflink>) = 2.72, <emph>p</emph> = .007. Paired t‐test analyses showed that the participants who practiced the random connection technique and the schema violation technique improved significantly in fluency from pretest to posttest, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>) = 3.85, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref15">40</reflink>) = 3.77, <emph>p</emph> = .001, respectively. Similarly, the results revealed that the participants who practiced the random connection technique and the schema violation technique improved significantly in flexibility from pretest to posttest, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref16">40</reflink>) = 3.98, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>) = 3.17, <emph>p</emph> = .003, respectively. Moreover, the participants who practiced the SCAMPER technique showed a tendency to generate more original ideas in the posttest than in the pretest, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref18">40</reflink>) = 3.59, <emph>p</emph> = .001.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-25">Discussion</hd> <p>This study examined the effectiveness of different cognitive‐based creativity training techniques in enhancing creativity: SCAMPER, random connection, schema violation, and simple ideation. An important finding of this study is that training techniques aiming to train specific cognitive processes underlying creativity seem to vary in enhancing different creativity indicators. It appears that the SCAMPER technique targeting conceptual expansion showed the potential to enhance idea originality, while the random connection technique targeting conceptual association and the schema violation technique targeting cognitive flexibility seemed to facilitate idea fluency and idea flexibility. In particular, the random connection technique led to larger increases in idea flexibility than the control condition and to marginally larger increases than the simple ideation technique. The simple ideation technique, which did not focus on any specific cognitive process, showed no training effect. Moreover, no significant change was observed in the RAT. Taken together, although some training techniques led to significant improvement in participants' creative performance from the pretest to posttest, for the majority of creativity indicators, we did not find significant differences among training conditions. Therefore, no firm conclusions about the effects of specific cognitive‐based training techniques can be drawn from this study.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the results of this study indicate that the SCAMPER technique showed a tendency to improve idea originality. Previous research has suggested that high conceptual expansion capacity leads to more original ideas (Benedek et al., 2020; Ward, Smith, & Vaid, 1997). Gilhooly et al. (2007) analyzed the cognitive processes underlying divergent thinking tasks and found that people who used a disassembling strategy (i.e., decompose the existing object into different parts) generated more original products. Conceptual expansion has some overlap with the disassembly strategy as they both aim to create new products by extending or refining existing ones. However, the participants in this study did not improve in the number of ideas they came up with (i.e., fluency). A possible explanation is that they might have exerted too much effort on coming up with ideas of high quality (i.e., originality). In addition, we assumed the SCAMPER to tap into the cognitive process of conceptual combination in thinking from perspectives such as "combine" and "rearrange," which did not seem to be supported by the current findings. As will be discussed below, creativity training techniques targeting conceptual combination significantly increased idea fluency and idea flexibility, which was not observed in the SCAMPER condition. Hence, the SCAMPER technique might be somewhat effective in fostering conceptual expansion but not, or to a lesser extent, conceptual combination.</p> <p>The random connection technique might be effective in enhancing idea fluency and idea flexibility. Fluency and flexibility were highly correlated in both the pretest and posttest, and it seemed that the training led to similar gains on the two creativity indicators. The current results support previous findings showing that trainings focusing on conceptual combination were effective in enhancing creativity (Scott et al., 2004a). When practicing the random connection technique, the participants were encouraged to think of many different characteristics of an unrelated object and apply these characteristics in solving a design problem. Thus, after practicing this technique, it is very likely that the participants were able to generate more ideas by way of making random associations. Moreover, this technique enhanced the participants' flexibility, which was manifested in an increase in the categories of generated ideas. However, the current results are in contrast with the study by Malycha and Maier (2017) in which random combination was found to significantly improve originality but not fluency and flexibility. The difference could be that in their study, the divergent thinking task required the participants to generate many different and original ideas —this explicit task instruction to be original might have led those participants to particularly focus on pursuing original ideas. In addition, in their study, the participants were given 12 min to perform the alternative uses task, while in our study, the time limit was 3 min. This might be too short of a time period for original ideas to emerge. As noted in the previous research, during idea generation, people tend to first retrieve known solutions and search for rare and unusual ideas in a later phase (Gilhooly et al., 2007).</p> <p>Similar to the random connection technique, the schema violation technique seemed to foster idea fluency and idea flexibility. This indicates that a training technique addressing cognitive flexibility may help participants reduce fixation on conventional ideas and shift their attention from stereotypical ideas to remote ones (George & Wiley, 2019; Gilhooly et al., 2007). The current findings are consistent with previous studies that have found that exposure to unexpected experiences entailing a schema violation facilitated creative performance (Gocłowska et al., 2014; Ritter et al., 2012). Hence, both conceptual combination and cognitive flexibility contributed to generating more ideas from diverse categories as they both emphasized remote associations (George & Wiley, 2019; Ward et al., 1999). However, given that conceptual combination involved a higher demand for conceptual association (Benedek et al., 2020), it appeared that the random connection technique led to more gains in fluency and flexibility than the schema violation technique (see Figure 1).</p> <p>While the SCAMPER technique, the random connection technique, and the schema violation technique all stimulated creative performance to some extent, they differed in the specific creativity indicators that were enhanced: the SCAMPER technique showed a tendency to stimulate idea originality while the random connection technique and the schema violation technique both tended to stimulate idea fluency and idea flexibility. This difference could be related to the underlying cognitive processes that are trained in these techniques. Previous research has shown that conceptual expansion, entailing automatic retrieval, and free association, facilitated creative ideation by extending different features of known objects (Beaty et al., 2014; Sowden, Pringle, & Gabora, 2015; Ward et al., 1999). Numerous studies have shown that conceptual combination involved associating or linking two unrelated objects based on specific characteristics, but ideas were generated in a constrained and controlled manner in that the associated characteristics had to fit both the target and the random objects (Benedek et al., 2020; Smith, Huber, & Vul, 2013). When using cognitive flexibility, the generation of creative ideas also relied on controlled inhibition of retrieving conventional ideas and switching of attention to diverse categories (George & Wiley, 2019). Therefore, compared with conceptual combination and cognitive flexibility, conceptual expansion seemed to require a great level of freedom and abstraction, which may have led to increased originality of the ideas generated. Since not all the training techniques have been found to increase originality, it would be of interest to test for different types of training techniques regarding the engagement or activation of factors that are important for generating original ideas such as working memory, cognitive persistence, and motivational states.</p> <p>In this study, the simple ideation technique did not enhance the participants' creative performance. While practicing this technique, the participants were not provided with any cognitive strategy or heuristic knowledge but were simply asked to freely generate ideas. Although it may help participants achieve a creative mindset, this unconstrained exploration may trigger participants to think of ideas that are less relevant to the current problem (Scott et al., 2004a, 2004b). This finding suggests that training general creative thinking skills instead of specific cognitive processes was less likely or not adequate to elicit a training effect. Another possible reason for the observed null effect could be that the participants in the simple ideation condition were less encouraged to exert efforts on the training exercises, which may have led to low cognitive activation and thus overall underperformance on the creativity tasks. As suggested by previous studies, creativity requires cognitive effort and mental control to overcome the distraction of conventional ideas and to think of original ideas (e.g., Gilhooly et al., 2007; Nijstad et al., 2010). Furthermore, the null effect of the simple ideation technique seems to indicate that the observed improvement in other training conditions is not due to mere practice or repetition of the creativity tasks.</p> <p>In addition, the current findings indicate that the usefulness scores of the participants in all training conditions were quite high in the pretest and remained unchanged in the posttest. This finding suggests that even when idea originality increased through training, as it did for the SCAMPER technique, this did not negatively influence idea usefulness. Previous research has suggested that people perceive an incompatibility between the originality and the usefulness of an idea (Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2010, 2014). In this study, however, idea originality in the SCAMPER technique condition increased while idea usefulness remained high.</p> <p>Although some creativity training techniques in this study had a positive effect on several indicators of divergent thinking, none of the training techniques improved performance on the convergent thinking task. Earlier studies have suggested that the conceptual combination process tends to benefit convergent thinking (Benedek et al., 2020; Mednick, 1962). However, in this study, after practicing the random connection technique, which aimed to foster conceptual combination, no difference in performance on the RAT was observed between pretest and posttest. It is possible that the training techniques employed in this study mainly contribute to searching for possible solutions but are not sufficient to strengthen the analytical and evaluative process to reach a single solution. An alternative explanation could be that, in this study, the participants' convergent thinking was assessed by an English version of the RAT, while most of the participants were Dutch or German. Earlier research has shown that people have difficulties answering RAT items in a nonnative language (Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1994).</p> <p>Overall, an increase in creative performance was observed for three of the four techniques on several of the creativity indicators—SCAMPER, random connection, schema violation—while no difference in creative performance was observed for one technique, simple ideation. However, none of the techniques led to an increase in all indicators of creativity. In this study, some indicators of the AUT, such as flexibility, were stimulated by several different training techniques (i.e., random connection, schema violation), whereas idea originality was stimulated by only one technique (i.e., SCAMPER). These findings stress that when designing or selecting a creativity training technique, the aim of the creativity training must/should be clear. Moreover, this study illustrates the importance of considering a broad range of indicators for evaluating intervention effectiveness. Instead of describing, for example, improved performance on divergent thinking, it is more precise to speak of certain aspects of divergent thinking. However, given the absence of significant differences between training conditions on almost all of the creativity indicators, one could also assume that the observed significance may be due to the testing effect rather than a result of training. Therefore, the results must be interpreted with caution.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-26">Limitations and Future Research Directions</hd> <p>In this study, the participants practiced one creativity technique for approximately 20 min. This is a relatively short period of time for participants to fully understand a training technique and may not be adequate for the participants to internalize a learned creative skill and use it effectively. Previous research has suggested that internalization is an essential process for knowledge learning (Vygotsky, 1986) and is effective in improving university students' creative abilities (Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012). Future research could examine whether creativity training techniques are more effective if the training is longer in duration. Second, the posttest was conducted immediately after the training. Due to the lack of a follow‐up measure, the question of how long the training effects last remains open. In future research, a follow‐up measure (e.g., a couple of days or months after the training) could be administered to examine the duration of the training effects. Third, the creativity indicators should be well defined before scoring. In this study, we did not provide the rater with elaborate definitions of creativity, originality, and usefulness, and we did not stress the differences among the three dimensions. This could explain the extremely high correlations (<emph>r</emph> > 0.99) between creativity and originality in both the pretest and posttest. A fourth limitation relates to the creativity measures. This study used only one item within the AUT and six items within the RAT. While an earlier study showed that one unusual uses task would be sufficient for obtaining a task reliability of above.80 (Silvia et al., 2008), future research could employ other forms of divergent thinking tasks (e.g., drawing, creative imagination tasks) and include more word sets in the RAT to measure convergent thinking. Moreover, the participants practiced the creativity training techniques in a self‐regulated manner without monitoring by the experimenter. The fact that the participants had control over the training may have helped them build a sense of self‐efficacy of their creative capacity (Bartley & Golek, 2004; Huber, Treffinger, Tracy, & Rand, 1979). However, it also required higher motivation and self‐discipline, and the participants could easily become distracted in the online context. Previous research has suggested monitoring, a method frequently used by teachers, as an effective practice for facilitating students' learning (e.g., Kaendler, Wiedmann, Rummel, & Spada, 2015; Safer & Fleischman, 2005). The training effect observed in this study may have been stronger if the experimenter had monitored the training progress, for example, by checking the participants' progress or by providing timely feedback. Future research may consider investigating the effectiveness of the training techniques with and without monitoring.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-27">Conclusions</hd> <p>Previous research has provided limited insight into whether training techniques, which focus on training specific cognitive processes that underlie creativity, differ in the type of creative performance they enhance. This study compared the effectiveness of four cognitive‐based creativity training techniques: SCAMPER, random connection, schema violation, and simple ideation. The effectiveness of the training techniques was evaluated on both divergent thinking and convergent thinking, which were measured with the AUT and the RAT, respectively. The results showed that training techniques tended to differ in enhancing specific creativity indicators: the SCAMPER technique targeting conceptual expansion marginally improved originality, while the random connection technique targeting conceptual association and the schema violation technique targeting cognitive flexibility enhanced fluency and flexibility. As shown by the results, none of the techniques increased the participants' performance on all of the indicators of creativity. These findings suggest that combining different creativity training techniques in a training program could be beneficial. Taken together, the current findings shed light on the effectiveness of different training techniques on enhancing specific creativity indicators. In addition, the findings indicated that when designing a training program, the aim of the training must be clear, for example, whether the focus is on stimulating idea originality and/or fluency. Future research is encouraged to investigate training techniques that are linked to other specific creative processes and, in particular, to examine which techniques are more effective in the development of convergent aspects of creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-28">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are stored at a data repository of Radboud University. Data are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-29">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This work has received funding from the Office of Guangdong Province Educational Science Planning under Higher Education Special Projects [2021GXJK174, Xiaojing Gu].</p> <hd id="AN0159376641-30">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>None.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supplementary Material</p> <ref id="AN0159376641-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO : Westview.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bartley, S.J., & Golek, J.H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face‐ to‐face instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 7, 167 – 175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beaty, R.E., Silvia, P.J., Nusbaum, E.C., Jauk, E., & Benedek, M. (2014). The roles of associative and executive processes in creative cognition. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1186 – 1197.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benedek, M., & Fink, A. (2019). Toward a neurocognitive framework of creative cognition: The role of memory, attention, and cognitive control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 116 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Benedek, M., Fink, A., & Neubauer, A.C. (2006). Enhancement of ideational fluency by means of computer‐based training. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 317 – 328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Benedek, M., Jurisch, J., Koschutnig, K., Fink, A., & Beaty, R.E. (2020). Elements of creative thought: Investigating the cognitive and neural correlates of association and bi‐association processes. NeuroImage, 210, 116586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116586</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bennett, J., & Müller, U. (2010). The development of flexibility and abstraction in preschool children. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 56, 455 – 473. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2010.0004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Botella, M., Nelson, J., & Zenasni, F. (2019). It is time to observe the creative process: How to use a creative process report diary (CRD). The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53, 211 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bowden, E.M., & Jung‐Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavioral Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 35, 634 – 639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheng, C.Y., Leung, A.K.Y., & Wu, T.Y. (2011). Going beyond the multicultural experience—creativity link: The mediating role of emotions. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 806 – 824. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4560.2011.01729.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chermahini, S.A., & Hommel, B. (2010). The (b)link between creativity and dopamine: spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking. Cognition, 115, 458 – 465.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York : Routledge Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conner, T.S., DeYoung, C.G., & Silvia, P.J. (2018). Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 181 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1257049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 391 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (Vol. 1st edn). New York : Harper Perennial.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New York : Harper Business.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. In E. Bialystok & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change (pp. 70 – 95). Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169539.003.0006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Estrada, C.A., Isen, A.M., & Young, M.J. (1994). Positive affect improves creative problem solving and influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 285 – 299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149 – 1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forthmann, B., Wilken, A., Doebler, P., & Holling, H. (2016). Strategy induction enhances creativity in figural divergent thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 53, 18 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, T., & Wiley, J. (2019). Fixation, flexibility, and forgetting during alternate uses tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13, 305. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilhooly, K.J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S.H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 611 – 625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8295.2007.tb00467.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gocłowska, M.A., Baas, M., Crisp, R.J., & De Dreu, C.K. (2014). Whether social schema violations help or hurt creativity depends on need for structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 959 – 971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214533132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gu, X., Dijksterhuis, A., & Ritter, S.M. (2019). Fostering children's creative thinking skills with the 5‐I training program. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 32, 92 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J.P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 3 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162‐6057.1967.tb00002.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569 – 598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huber, J., Treffinger, D., Tracy, D., & Rand, D. (1979). Self‐instructional use of programmed creativity‐training materials with gifted and regular students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 303 – 309.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunter, S.T., Bedell‐Avers, K.E., Hunsicker, C.M., Mumford, M.D., & Ligon, G.S. (2008). Applying multiple knowledge structures in creative thought: Effects on idea generation and problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 137 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaendler, C., Wiedmann, M., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2015). Teacher competencies for the implementation of collaborative learning in the classroom: A framework and research review. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 505 – 536.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilgour, M., & Koslow, S. (2009). Why and how do creative thinking techniques work?: Trading off originality and appropriateness to make more creative advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 298 – 309.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, K.H., & Pierce, R.A. (2013). Convergent versus divergent thinking. New York : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleibeuker, S.W., Stevenson, C.E., van der Aar, L., Overgaauw, S., van Duijvenvoorde, A.C., & Crone, E.A. (2017). Training in the adolescent brain: An fMRI training study on divergent thinking. Developmental Psychology, 53, 353 – 365. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, H.H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 435 – 446. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1804_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malycha, C.P., & Maier, G.W. (2017). The random‐map technique: Enhancing mind‐mapping with a conceptual combination technique to foster creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 29, 114 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1302763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBurney, D.H., & White, T.L. (2009). Research methods. Belmont, CA : Cengage Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mumford, M.D., & McIntosh, T. (2017). Creative thinking processes: The past and the future. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 317 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nijstad, B.A., De Dreu, C.K., Rietzschel, E.F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 34 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nusbaum, E.C., & Silvia, P.J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39, 36 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborn, A.F. (1953). Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem‐solving. New York : Scribners.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ozyaprak, M. (2016). The effectiveness of SCAMPER technique on creative thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4, 31 – 40. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2016116348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 47 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2014). Effects of problem scope and creativity instructions on idea generation and selection. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 185 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritter, S.M., Damian, R.I., Simonton, D.K., Van Baaren, R.B., Strick, M., Derks, J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 961 – 964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritter, S.M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive‐based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1, 243 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465‐016‐0002‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, L.H., & Lin, H.‐T. (1984). A meta‐analysis of long‐term creativity training programs. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162‐6057.1984.tb00985.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657 – 687.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M.A., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M.A., & Okuda, S.M. (1991). The instructional enhancement of the flexibility and originality scores of divergent thinking tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 435 – 441. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Safer, N., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Research matters: How student progress monitoring improves instruction. Educational Leadership, 62, 81 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, G., Leritz, L.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361 – 388. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1604_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, G., Leritz, L.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: Approaches and their effectiveness. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 149 – 179. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162‐6057.2004.tb01238.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, G., Lonergan, D.C., & Mumford, M.D. (2005). Conceptual combination: Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 79 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvia, P.J., Winterstein, B.P., Willse, J.T., Barona, C.M., Cram, J.T., Hess, K.I., ... 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, 68 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K.A., Huber, D.E., & Vul, E. (2013). Multiply‐constrained semantic search in the Remote Associates Test. Cognition, 128, 64 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, S.M., & Ward, T.B. (2012). Cognition and the creation of ideas. In K.J. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 456 – 474). Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sowden, P.T., Pringle, A., & Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual‐process theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 40 – 60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York : Free Press. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/31621901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Svensson, N., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2002). Effects of individual performance versus group performance with and without de Bono techniques for enhancing creativity. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 12, 15 – 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th edn). Boston : Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E.P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162‐6057.1972.tb00923.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). The genetic roots of thought and speech. In A. Kozulin (Trans. & Ed.), Thought and language (pp. v – x). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, T.B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of conceptual structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, T.B. (2007). Creative cognition as a window on creativity. Methods, 42, 28 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., & Finke, R.A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189 – 212). New York : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., & Vaid, J. (1997). Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. In T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith & J. Viad (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 1 – 27). Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeh, Y.C., Yeh, Y.L., & Chen, Y.H. (2012). From knowledge sharing to knowledge creation: A blended knowledge‐management model for improving university students' creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 245 – 257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabelina, D.L., & Robinson, M.D. (2010). Creativity as flexible cognitive control. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 136 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017379.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeng, L., Proctor, R.W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Fostering creativity in service development: Facilitating service innovation by the creative cognition approach. Service Science, 1, 142 – 153.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xiaojing Gu; Simone M. Ritter; Lea R. Delfmann and Ap Dijksterhuis</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib200" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref14"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1349922
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Stimulating Creativity: Examining the Effectiveness of Four Cognitive-Based Creativity Training Techniques
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gu%2C+Xiaojing%22">Gu, Xiaojing</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5842-3821">0000-0001-5842-3821</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ritter%2C+Simone+M%2E%22">Ritter, Simone M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Delfmann%2C+Lea+R%2E%22">Delfmann, Lea R.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dijksterhuis%2C+Ap%22">Dijksterhuis, Ap</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. Sep 2022 56(3):312-327.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training+Methods%22">Training Methods</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.531
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175<br />2162-6057
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Creative thinking is needed to thrive in our fast-changing world. It has been shown that creative thinking skills can be enhanced through training. Whereas previous research has mainly focused on examining the overall effectiveness of comprehensive creativity training programs, this study examined the effectiveness of four cognitive-based training techniques (SCAMPER, random connection, schema violation, and simple ideation), each with the aim of training specific cognitive processes underlying creativity. The effectiveness of the four techniques was tested using a pre-posttest between-subjects design. The participants were assigned to one of the four creativity training conditions or a control condition and practiced each training technique for approximately 20 min. Before and after training, the participants' creative performance was measured with divergent thinking (Alternative Uses Task; fluency, flexibility, originality, creativity, usefulness) and convergent thinking (Remote Associates Test) tasks. The results showed marginal to significant improvements on several key indicators of divergent thinking, but none of the techniques led to improvement in convergent thinking. Specifically, the SCAMPER technique targeting conceptual expansion marginally improved idea originality, while the random connection technique targeting conceptual combination and the schema violation technique targeting cognitive flexibility seemed to facilitate idea fluency and idea flexibility. No improvement was observed for the simple ideation technique and the control condition.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1349922
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1349922
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.531
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 312
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training Methods
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Stimulating Creativity: Examining the Effectiveness of Four Cognitive-Based Creativity Training Techniques
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gu, Xiaojing
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ritter, Simone M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Delfmann, Lea R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dijksterhuis, Ap
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-6057
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1