View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Two's Company: How Academic Diversity in Dyads Enhances Divergent Thinking

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Two's Company: How Academic Diversity in Dyads Enhances Divergent Thinking
Language: English
Authors: Xiaochen Liu (ORCID 0000-0003-4060-9091), Gregory T. Boldt (ORCID 0000-0002-6135-2689), Donald J. Leu (ORCID 0000-0002-9269-653X), James C. Kaufman (ORCID 0000-0003-0595-2820)
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. 2025 59(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Group Dynamics, Student Diversity, Graduate Students, Research Universities, Creativity Tests, Creative Thinking, Scores, Cooperative Learning, Innovation, Task Analysis, Teamwork, Productivity, Concept Formation, Novelty (Stimulus Dimension)
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.1539
ISSN: 0022-0175
2162-6057
Abstract: Group diversity is an active topic in research as studies examine how differences in background, culture, job position, gender, and ethnicity can all impact group creativity. One relatively overlooked component is how diversity in academic knowledge affects group and individual creativity. In this study, 56 graduate students from a research university in the United States were paired into a dyad with another academically similar or diverse student. They then took the Alternate Uses Test (AUT) alone, as a team, and then alone again. The AUT was used to obtain three divergent thinking scores--fluency, flexibility, and originality. The scores were analyzed to determine if graduate students in academically diverse dyads worked better together (and, subsequently, alone) compared to academically similar dyads. The results showed that academically diverse dyads had significantly higher scores on originality for both increases in individual task scores and the team creativity task, as well as higher fluency scores compared to academically similar dyads. In addition, the results suggest that academically similar and diverse dyads demonstrate varying patterns of fluency and originality scores over time. Results indicated that embracing academic diversity can lead to both dyads and, subsequently, individuals being more productive in generating novel ideas.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1461982
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGutz3uTK-q5VJEESf4qiXBAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBkZtNhXNCsLCWcGUQIBEICBm-tdr8PItlagHRw0C_WPylKqKKt2qaXVlbP5wTnKL_LeizwjpnrYQer8COqBqrgHfOjjFdTCuJPNlSY6AF-kafPt5gX-RTqrpEbgbtuLEsxtXnVEFayyXuHV_8gxKChTw7EzJgijS5rbmPd48HFeRoPI9YnhaF8vm4BeBP9JOvTJkT5QqbJBL82o0xYlfTygCkci8HqgUB1ZprF5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186883831;3u701mar.25;2025Jul28.03:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186883831-1">Two's Company: How Academic Diversity in Dyads Enhances Divergent Thinking </title> <p>Group diversity is an active topic in research as studies examine how differences in background, culture, job position, gender, and ethnicity can all impact group creativity. One relatively overlooked component is how diversity in academic knowledge affects group and individual creativity. In this study, 56 graduate students from a research university in the United States were paired into a dyad with another academically similar or diverse student. They then took the Alternate Uses Test (AUT) alone, as a team, and then alone again. The AUT was used to obtain three divergent thinking scores—fluency, flexibility, and originality. The scores were analyzed to determine if graduate students in academically diverse dyads worked better together (and, subsequently, alone) compared to academically similar dyads. The results showed that academically diverse dyads had significantly higher scores on originality for both increases in individual task scores and the team creativity task, as well as higher fluency scores compared to academically similar dyads. In addition, the results suggest that academically similar and diverse dyads demonstrate varying patterns of fluency and originality scores over time. Results indicated that embracing academic diversity can lead to both dyads and, subsequently, individuals being more productive in generating novel ideas.</p> <p>Keywords: academic diversity; creativity; divergent thinking; dyad creativity; groupwork</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Most creativity research, from early (Guilford [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref1">23</reflink>]) to contemporary studies (Kaufman [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref2">37</reflink>]), has focused on individual differences in creativity, emphasizing the specific creative person, process, and a final product. In recent decades, there has been a shift toward examining collaborative, societal, and cultural factors (John‐Steiner [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]; Paulus and Nijstad [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref4">67</reflink>]). This shift builds upon the sociocultural approach, which views creativity as the result of interactions between individuals and their social contexts (Glăveanu [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]; Glăveanu et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Often defined as "the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context" (Plucker et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref8">71</reflink>], 90), creativity is recognized not only as a means of enhancing personal wellbeing (Acar et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]; Kaufman [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]) and being successful in life (Leung et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref11">44</reflink>]), but also a necessity for the workplace and organizations to adapt to the advancement of technology and globalization (Reiter‐Palmon [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref12">73</reflink>]). Indeed, creativity in group work has gained significant attention as a popular field of study since the 1990s (McKay et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref13">48</reflink>]; Reiter‐Palmon et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref14">76</reflink>]; Sawyer [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref15">87</reflink>]). Beyond exploring individuals' cognition or personality traits, social interaction fosters shared perspectives that stimulate creative action (Glăveanu [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]). Additionally, the emergence of creative ideas or products may be better explained through the group work process (Sawyer [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref17">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>Early cognitive research has also highlighted how collaborative processes stimulate creativity. The associative theory of the cognitive thinking process in creativity, originally developed by Mednick ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref18">50</reflink>]), emphasizes that associative elements from memory can combine in novel ways to generate creative ideas. The more remote or distantly related the elements in the combination are, the more creative the resulting idea may be. Similarly, Rothenberg's ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref19">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref20">79</reflink>]) concept of homospatial thinking argues that taking two separate ideas and synthesizing them to form a new, distinct idea will result in higher levels of creativity. Advancing this idea even further, Rothenberg ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref21">79</reflink>]) proposed Janusian thinking, in which taking two diametrically opposed concepts and forcing them to fit together can also enhance creative thought.</p> <p>Extending the underlying concepts and theories to group settings, research has explored how knowledge and idea sharing in small groups can enhance creative production, as ideas generated by others may help creators activate more original ideas and problem‐relevant knowledge (Nijstad and Stroebe [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref22">60</reflink>]). Interactive group brainstorming was found to enhance the subsequent performance of individuals on brainwriting creativity tasks (Paulus and Yang [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref23">69</reflink>]). Additionally, models proposed by Paulus ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref24">66</reflink>]) and Paulus and Brown ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref25">68</reflink>]) emphasize the role of diverse group members in stimulating the creative thinking process, highlighting this as a valuable direction for future research. There have been several meta‐analyses examining associative network diversity's effects on creativity. Group diversity in members' job functions and roles (Bell et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]; Hülsheger et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref27">32</reflink>]) and in educational or disciplinary backgrounds (Bell et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]; Dijk et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref29">15</reflink>]) was found to significantly (if weakly) relate to the creative performance of an organizational team.</p> <p>The present study briefly outlines the methods employed to measure divergent thinking (specifically, the Alternate Uses Test [AUT]), a widely recognized indicator of creativity, and explores the influence of group diversity (specifically academic diversity), a potential factor affecting group creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-3">Divergent Thinking and Creativity</hd> <p>Divergent thinking, originally termed as "divergent production," was defined as an ability to think in different directions and produce a variety of responses, in contrast to convergent thinking that seeks the correct answer or produces a best or conventional answer (Guilford [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref30">25</reflink>], 16). Guilford's conception of divergent thinking primarily emphasized three aspects: fluency, the total count of responses; flexibility, the number of categories represented by these responses; and originality, the volume of unusual and novel answers. Guilford's divergent thinking emphasized the originality of thoughts, which is a useful indicator of potential for creative thinking (Runco and Acar [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref31">81</reflink>]). Divergent thinking is a central feature of the idea generation process during creative problem solving (Vincent et al. [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref32">96</reflink>]) and group brainstorming (Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>]; Coskun [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref34">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Divergent thinking tests measure an individual's ability to generate many different ideas in response to a particular open‐ended stimulus or problem (Lee and Therriault [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref35">42</reflink>]). These tools have become the primary assessment tool used in creativity research (Long [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref36">45</reflink>]; Said‐Metwaly et al. [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref37">84</reflink>]) due to their objective and reliable nature (Runco and Acar [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref38">81</reflink>]). Many tests of divergent thinking have been published, with the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref39">94</reflink>]) being used most frequently (Kim [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]). Meta‐analyses have demonstrated modest correlations between divergent thinking test scores and creative achievement (Kim [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref41">40</reflink>]; Said‐Metwaly et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref42">83</reflink>]), and studies have found varied associations between dimensions of divergent thinking and product creativity (e.g., Boldt and Strub [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>]; Han and Marvin [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]; Jeon et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>]; Reiter‐Palmon and Arreola [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref46">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Besides more extensive test batteries such as the TTCT, Guilford et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>]) AUT is one of the most prevalent measures of divergent thinking (Donzallaz et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>]). It has been commonly used in studies involving both individuals and dyads (Lu et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]; Camargo et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]; Xue et al. [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref51">101</reflink>]). The AUT was chosen for several reasons. It is an efficient measure of divergent thinking, and its focus on idea generation corresponds with Mednick's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref52">50</reflink>]) associative theory. Additionally, its simplicity, generality, and use of common items as prompts facilitate dyadic brainstorming by minimizing the potential task‐relevance complications that might arise from academic diversity. Highly specific tasks (e.g., Product Improvement Task from the TTCT) could hinder divergent thinking by being either overly relevant or too unrelated to the participants' areas of expertise. A simple task like the AUT might also reduce problem representation gaps, ensuring participants are more likely to be on the same page.</p> <p>In the AUT, participants are asked to generate different uses for everyday objects. Guilford et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref53">26</reflink>]) cited numerous studies demonstrating acceptable estimates of reliability and validity, and contemporary research has consistently found relationships between AUT scores and relevant measures such as openness to experience (Puryear et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref54">72</reflink>]), design product ideation (Erwin et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]), and creative production in domains, such as math and art (Jeon et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref56">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-4">Group Diversity and Creativity</hd> <p>Creativity is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon that can be studied from a variety of perspectives. Group creativity is influenced by diverse factors, including personality, motivation, social processes, leadership, and organizational culture (Reiter‐Palmon et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref57">75</reflink>]). One essential context for group creativity is diversity (e.g., Harvey [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref58">28</reflink>]), and researchers have suggested that group diversity can enhance creative and innovative outcomes for organizations and work groups (McLeod et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref59">49</reflink>]; Milliken et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref60">53</reflink>]; O'Reilly III et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref61">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>In recent years, group diversity has drawn increased attention in creativity research, particularly within organizational contexts (Moirano et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref62">54</reflink>]). Diversity can be studied at individual, team, and organizational levels, with evidence suggesting that relationships vary to some degree across these levels (Hundschell et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref63">33</reflink>]). Perhaps due to the influence of the level of analysis and the stage of creativity assessed (e.g., Torrisi et al. [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref64">95</reflink>]), evidence for the relationship between diversity and creativity has proven inconsistent across studies (Reiter‐Palmon and Leone [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref65">77</reflink>]). Clarifying these inconsistencies to some degree, researchers have investigated factors that moderate the effect of group diversity on creativity. Language barriers, competing interests, and gaps in problem representations can cause diversity to inhibit group creativity (Moirano et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref66">54</reflink>]; Reiter‐Palmon and Leone [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref67">77</reflink>]). Conversely, supportive leadership, psychologically safe environments, trust‐building, internal communication, and knowledge‐sharing can positively impact the effect of diversity on group creativity (Reiter‐Palmon and Leone [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref68">77</reflink>]; Tang [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref69">90</reflink>]). Across all levels of analysis, however, evidence consistently suggests that ethnic, functional, and knowledge diversity are beneficial to creativity (Hundschell et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref70">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>The specific influences of different types of diversity—including individual perspectives, life experiences, mindsets, and demographics such as gender, age, or ethnicity—on group creativity are not clearly distinguished in the existing literature. Some studies have found that groups with more diverse membership, both demographically (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity) and ideologically (e.g., from different company departments or educational backgrounds), displayed improved team‐level creativity and performance, presumably due to the increased heterogeneity of perspectives and ideas (Bell et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>]; Page [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref72">63</reflink>]). Other studies found that when team members originated from different cultural backgrounds, group creativity was higher (Stahl et al. [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref73">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>McLeod et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref74">49</reflink>]) reported that ethnically diverse groups generated more effective and feasible ideas during brainstorming sessions than homogeneous groups. Additionally, Antonio et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>]) found that students who engaged in discussions within racially diverse groups demonstrated more integrative complexity than those in homogeneous groups. Intergroup contact theory states that engaging in interactions with other social groups improves one's attitudes toward diversity through the processes of learning about dissimilar others (Pettigrew [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref76">70</reflink>]). Research demonstrating that exposure to multicultural environments fosters individual creative thoughts and promotes creative problem‐solving skills (e.g., Maddux and Galinsky [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref77">47</reflink>]; Leung and Chiu [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref78">43</reflink>]) could serve as indirect evidence for the potential effects of cultural diversity in group work on individual creativity. However, not all studies on creativity find an advantage for the cultural and ethnically diverse group. Paletz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref79">65</reflink>]) found that ethnic diversity had no significant effect on writing a creative ending to a story, and Chua ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref80">10</reflink>]) stated that cultural diversity is less helpful when the task at hand does not require diverse cultural knowledge (e.g., devising a new effective way to clean vegetables).</p> <p>Besides ethnic differences, studies on language and gender diversity have produced mixed findings. Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref81">98</reflink>]) found that working in a bilingual group increased groups' divergent thinking scores during brainstorming, but only through the mediation of machine translation. In terms of gender diversity, studies have shown that gender diversity promotes innovation and creativity in the work group (O'Reilly III et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref82">61</reflink>]). Conversely, Diehl and Stroebe's ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref83">14</reflink>]) results suggested that group work generated lower performance levels than individual work, both in terms of the quality and quantity of ideas that were generated. Further, performance did not vary across same‐sex and mixed sex groups.</p> <p>Diversity of knowledge and skills has been found to contribute to team innovation, depending on the sophistication of group processes (O'Reilly III et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref84">61</reflink>]). Knowledge diversity can be categorized according to differences in knowledge content (e.g., expertise, functional backgrounds), valued assets and resources (e.g., pay, authority), and mental models regarding group work (e.g., attitudes, values; Moirano et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref85">54</reflink>]). Nemeth ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref86">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref87">57</reflink>]) and Nemeth and Kwan ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref88">58</reflink>]) presented a model arguing that when majority perspectives disagree, convergent thinking increases. However, when minority perspectives voice disagreement, divergent thinking increases, thereby boosting overall group creative problem‐solving. Dyne and Saavedra's ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref89">17</reflink>]) conducted a longitudinal study based on Nemeth's ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref90">56</reflink>]) model and found support that exposure to such minority perspectives will increase cognitive effort, resulting in the generation of more relevant solutions and original ideas. There are also mixed findings, as Harvey ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref91">28</reflink>]) suggested that deep‐level diversity (e.g., opinions, attitudes, information, and values) may not always benefit divergent idea generation and could result in products with less elaborated and integrated ideas.</p> <p>Much of the existing research on group diversity and creativity is situated within organizational settings. A new way to study the influence of knowledge diversity on creativity would be to use graduate students, who have strong academic backgrounds in their fields after many years of study and often work in group projects or lab work. Graduate students often have limited opportunities to collaborate with individuals from different academic backgrounds, and the well‐established, positive effects of knowledge diversity (Milliken et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref92">53</reflink>]; O'Reilly III et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref93">61</reflink>]) suggest that educational diversity could positively impact group creativity. In an effort to clarify whether educational diversity enhances group creativity by increasing resources or inhibits group creativity by making ideas inaccessible, Lu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref94">46</reflink>]) analyzed neuroimaging data and AUT scores from 116 college students assigned to low diversity (partners both majoring in either science or social science) and high diversity (partners majoring in science and social science) dyads. In addition to neurological differences, the results indicated that educational diversity's effects varied across the AUT subscales, whereas individuals in the low diversity group scored higher in fluency, participants in the high diversity group scored higher in flexibility. To our knowledge, this is the only study to have specifically examined the effects of dyads' educational diversity on AUT scores, and further research is needed to explore academic field diversity's role in promoting creativity within graduate student groups.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-5">The Present Investigation</hd> <p>The present study examined how academic diversity in dyads affects performance on the AUT, focusing on three components of divergent thinking: fluency, flexibility, and originality. The use of dyads in the current study was informed by prior research showing that individuals working in dyads perform better than those working alone. Torrance ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref95">92</reflink>]) found that individuals in dyads outperformed individuals in originality (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01), and later research (Torrance [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref96">93</reflink>]) showed that dyads generally outperform individuals across all three aspects of divergent thinking. These findings align with the associative theory (Mednick [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref97">50</reflink>]), which posits that creativity emerges from the ability to combine diverse associative elements into novel combinations (originality). Dyads, particularly heterogeneous ones, provide a more diverse associative network, as members bring unique perspectives and knowledge bases that expand the pool of potential associations (flexibility). Although studies on diversity effects have yielded mixed results, as discussed above, the broader range of associative inputs in diverse dyads was expected to facilitate idea generation (fluency) and enhance performance. Thus, the present research hypothesized positive effects across all three measures in the individual posttest and during collaborative work, with greater improvements anticipated in heterogeneous groups due to their enriched associative networks.</p> <p>Compared to larger group sizes, dyads were chosen for this study to create a simpler and more controlled environment, as larger groups tend to amplify group work issues such as social loafing and group blocking (Williams [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref98">100</reflink>]; Diehl and Stroebe [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref99">13</reflink>]). Additionally, individuals may become overwhelmed by diverse inputs, leading to production loss in the group of four (Diehl and Stroebe [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref100">13</reflink>]). Meta‐analyses have also indicated that smaller group sizes are more effective for idea generation (Mullen et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref101">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given that studies on diversity's effects have shown improvements in divergent thinking, we predicted enhanced creative performance for all three divergent thinking outcomes. Although these aspects are often treated as correlated predictors, they represent distinct cognitive patterns (Nijstad et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref102">59</reflink>]; Guilford [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref103">24</reflink>]). For instance, Weiss and Wilhelm ([<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref104">99</reflink>]) demonstrated that flexibility is strongly related to fluency and originality, accounting for 61% of its variance; yet, it cannot be fully subsumed by them, highlighting their unique contributions. Moreover, studies on diversity and divergent thinking (e.g., Harvey [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref105">28</reflink>]; Lu et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref106">46</reflink>]) have revealed differing effects across these dimensions. As such, we proposed three distinct sub‐hypotheses for these outcomes, recognizing the strong possibility that fluency, flexibility, and originality may not follow the same trajectory. Based on unanswered questions in the existing literature, the following research questions were examined.</p> <p> <bold>Research question 1a</bold>: <emph>During collaborative work, will dyads with diverse academic backgrounds outperform dyads with similar academic backgrounds in fluency?</emph></p> <p> <bold>Research question 1b</bold>: <emph>During collaborative work, will dyads with diverse academic backgrounds outperform dyads with similar academic backgrounds in flexibility?</emph></p> <p> <bold>Research question 1c</bold>: <emph>During collaborative work, will dyads with diverse academic backgrounds outperform dyads with similar academic backgrounds in originality?</emph></p> <p> <bold>Research question 2a</bold>: <emph>After collaborative work, will individuals from dyads with diverse academic backgrounds show greater improvement in posttest fluency scores compared to those from dyads with similar academic backgrounds?</emph></p> <p> <bold>Research question 2b</bold>: <emph>After collaborative work, will individuals from dyads with diverse academic backgrounds show greater improvement in posttest flexibility scores compared to those from dyads with similar academic backgrounds?</emph></p> <p> <bold>Research question 2c</bold>: <emph>After collaborative work, will individuals from dyads with diverse academic backgrounds show greater improvement in posttest originality scores compared to those from dyads with similar academic backgrounds?</emph></p> <hd id="AN0186883831-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186883831-7">Participants and Data Collection</hd> <p>A total of 56 graduate students from a research university were recruited through the school mailing list. Participation was voluntary, and participants who completed the test received a $15 amazon gift card. The sample included 36 females and 20 males in their first through sixth year of graduate study (mean years of graduate study = 2.21; SD = 1.04). Participants' ages ranged from 22 to 40 years (mean age = 26.61; SD = 3.59). Then, 42.86% of the participants were native English speakers or bilingual in English and another language, while 57.14% were non‐native English speakers with professional English skills.</p> <p>Before group assignment, students' academic backgrounds were categorized based on the Holland ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref107">30</reflink>]). There were four participants studying in the Realistic (R) fields (architecture, civil engineering, geology, and physical therapy); 14 in Investigative (I) field (science and engineering); two in Artistic (A) fields (German and linguistics); 20 in Social (S) fields (education, health science, and human development study); 11 in Enterprise (E) fields (business, management, and economics); and five in Conventional (C) fields (statistics, measurement evaluation and assessment, and computer science).</p> <p>Participants were then assigned to one of 28 dyads to work with another graduate student. Fourteen dyads comprised two students with similar disciplines of studies (academically similar dyad; e.g., education and health science) and 14 dyads consisted of two students with diverse disciplines of studies (academically diverse dyad; e.g., engineering and German studies). Table 1 provides demographic information broken down by each type of dyad.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Similar dyad</th><th align="center">Diverse dyad</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">N</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">28</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Mean</td><td align="center">26.86</td><td align="center">26.36</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SD</td><td align="center">2.97</td><td align="center">4.16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Years of grad study</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Mean</td><td align="center">2.29</td><td align="center">2.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SD</td><td align="center">0.98</td><td align="center">1.11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender (% male)</td><td align="center">39.29</td><td align="center">32.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Language background</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">English native (monolingual or bilingual)</td><td align="center">32.14</td><td align="center">53.57</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other</td><td align="center">67.86</td><td align="center">46.43</td></tr><tr><td align="left">RIASEC</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">R</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="center">14.29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I</td><td align="center">28.57</td><td align="center">21.43</td></tr><tr><td align="left">A</td><td align="center">7.14</td><td align="center">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S</td><td align="center">35.71</td><td align="center">35.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">E</td><td align="center">21.43</td><td align="center">17.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">C</td><td align="center">7.14</td><td align="center">10.71</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> Except for sample size (<emph>N</emph>), age, and year of grad, data are reported as percentages.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-8">Instruments</hd> <p>The AUT (Guilford et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref108">26</reflink>]) was employed to collect individual and group divergent thinking scores. The AUT is a reliable indicator of creativity potential, showing test–retest reliability for adults of <emph>r</emph> = 0.75 with six items, <emph>r</emph> = 0.82 with nine items, and <emph>r</emph> = 0.86 with 12 items (Runco and Acar [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref109">81</reflink>]). The inter‐item correlations have been reported to range from 0.81 to 0.89 for fluency, flexibility, and originality (e.g., Barron and Harrington [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref110">4</reflink>]). In the current study, 12 items for individual tests were selected from the manual of instructions and interpretations for the AUT (Guilford et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref111">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-9">Procedures</hd> <p>Participants were instructed to list unusual uses for 12 common objects within the allotted time. As the AUT was originally designed for individual use, the number of items and the time limit were modified during team activity to accommodate communication and provide extra time to discuss and complete each item. The first four items were completed individually by all participants in 6 min (3 min for the first two items, and 3 min for the next two items). After a brief introduction to the team activity, each dyad was asked to collaboratively solve four items in 16 min (4 min per item). Finally, the last four items were completed individually in 6 min, mirroring the process for the first four items. Table 2 outlines all procedures and test items. Participants were given the following instructions adapted from the AUT manual (Guilford et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref112">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>2 TABLE Test items and time limit.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Test</th><th align="center">Time limit</th><th align="center">Items</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Individual pretest (6 min)</td><td align="center">3 min</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Shoe</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Button</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center">3 min</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Key</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Wooden Pencil</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dyad activity (16 min)</td><td align="center">4 min</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Automobile Tire</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center">4 min</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Eyeglasses</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center">4 min</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Chair</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center">4 min</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Watch</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Individual posttest (6 min)</td><td align="center">3 min</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Safety Pin</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Bed Sheet</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center">3 min</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Milk Carton</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Nail</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <bold>Individual Pretest:</bold> In this test, you will be asked to consider some common objects. Try to list as many uses as you can for this common object. Example: A NEWSPAPER. You might think of the following uses for a newspaper: start a fire, wrap garbage, swat flies, stuffing to pack boxes, line drawers or shelves, make up a kidnap note ...</p> <p>You will have 3 min to complete the first two items, and another 3 min to complete other two items. Notice that all of the uses listed are different from each other. Do not spend too much time on any one item. Write down those uses that occur to you and go on to the next one. If you have any questions, ask now.</p> <p> <bold>Team Activity:</bold> You will work with your partner to finish four items within 16 min. You will have 4 min to complete each item. You can both write down the answer on this big paper.</p> <p> <bold>Individual Posttest:</bold> You will have 3 min to complete the first two items, and another 3 min to complete other two items individually. Write down those uses that occur to you and go on to the next one.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-10">Scoring</hd> <p>Responses were reviewed and scored for fluency, flexibility, and originality. First, a fluency score was calculated as the number of distinct and acceptable responses generated for each item. For example, the responses given in the instructions for the sample item of "List as many uses as you can for a newspaper" could be awarded a fluency score of 6. The participant who lists more responses will have a higher fluency score. However, if the answer was too vague (i.e., use a newspaper to make something) or the duplicated (i.e., the answer of "use a newspaper to sing" is the same as "use a newspaper to sing a song"), then as per the AUT manual's guidance, it was not scored. Second, a flexibility score was calculated on the basis of the number of different categories into which responses fall. Responses were generalized into a single keyword that categorized similar answers. For example, based on the criteria and the answer pool in the manual, "use newspaper to draw a line" and "use newspaper to write on the ground" would be categorized into "using a newspaper as a pen." New categories were added only if responses were not listed in the pool. For example, the fourth item in collaborative activity (see Table 2) included the modern uses of fitness and health (i.e., use of a watch to count heartbeats and steps while jogging), which is not listed in the manual. If a participant generated more categories of answers, the flexibility score is considered to be higher. Third, the originality score reflected the number of statistically infrequent ideas (i.e., the number of uncommon ideas that emerged for each item).</p> <p>After scoring originality based on the responses listed in the manual, it was observed that some low‐frequency responses (ideas that only one individual came up with) were mistakenly categorized as "usual," whereas some high‐frequency responses (for instance, ideas suggested by 10 individuals) were marked as "unusual." According to prior studies, original ideas should have a low percentage of occurrence in the participant pool (Milgram and Milgram [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref113">52</reflink>]; Wallace and Russ [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref114">97</reflink>]). The original answer in this study was defined as responses that were mentioned by fewer than 10% of 56 participants during the individual pretest and posttest, and responses that were mentioned by fewer than 10% of 28 dyads during dyad activities. The scoring procedure assigns a score of 0 to the most common responses and a score of 1 to a unique response, then sums up the scores for all responses. For example, one participant's answers (along with their frequency of occurrence) for the prompt of "shoes" in the current study were "smash bugs (<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref115">40</reflink>); hat (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>); dry up puddle (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>); make an ant house (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref118">6</reflink>)." Because two of 56 individuals answered "hat," and one of 56 individuals answered "dry up puddle," the answer of "hat" and "dry up puddle" have a statistical infrequency of occurrence lower than 10% of 56. Thus, in this example, the total score of originality is 2.</p> <p>Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the fluency, flexibility, and originality scores of each item and the total score in the collaborative activity of two types of dyad. Additionally, the means and standard deviations of fluency, flexibility, and originality scores for each item in the individual test, and two composites (individual pretest and individual posttest) across academically diverse and similar dyads are provided in Table 4.</p> <p>3 TABLE Dyad means and standard deviations on subtest in dyad activities.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Similar dyad</th><th align="center">Diverse dyad</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Means</th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center">Means</th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Automobile tire</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">11.00</td><td align="center">3.42</td><td align="center">10.29</td><td align="center">3.25</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">10.79</td><td align="center">3.26</td><td align="center">9.93</td><td align="center">2.90</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">2.14</td><td align="center">1.41</td><td align="center">2.14</td><td align="center">1.23</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Eyeglasses</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">9.57</td><td align="center">3.41</td><td align="center">10.36</td><td align="center">3.69</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">9.29</td><td align="center">3.05</td><td align="center">9.93</td><td align="center">3.65</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.43</td><td align="center">1.09</td><td align="center">2.64</td><td align="center">1.60</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Chair</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">12.14</td><td align="center">2.80</td><td align="center">14.93</td><td align="center">4.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">11.86</td><td align="center">2.71</td><td align="center">13.93</td><td align="center">3.77</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">1.11</td><td align="center">2.36</td><td align="center">1.60</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Watch</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">11.07</td><td align="center">3.32</td><td align="center">13.57</td><td align="center">5.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">10.64</td><td align="center">3.67</td><td align="center">12.07</td><td align="center">4.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center">0.78</td><td align="center">2.36</td><td align="center">1.45</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 TABLE Means and standard deviations on subtest and composite scores of pre and post individual tests.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Similar dyad</th><th align="center">Diverse dyad</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Means</th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center">Means</th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Pretest items</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Shoes</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">4.61</td><td align="center">1.99</td><td align="center">5.14</td><td align="center">2.31</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">4.18</td><td align="center">1.95</td><td align="center">4.61</td><td align="center">2.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.14</td><td align="center">1.01</td><td align="center">1.36</td><td align="center">1.37</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Button</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">3.61</td><td align="center">1.69</td><td align="center">3.86</td><td align="center">2.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">3.39</td><td align="center">1.52</td><td align="center">3.21</td><td align="center">1.73</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.18</td><td align="center">1.06</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center">0.94</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Key</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">3.61</td><td align="center">1.37</td><td align="center">4.25</td><td align="center">1.97</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">3.39</td><td align="center">1.26</td><td align="center">3.61</td><td align="center">1.34</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center">0.77</td><td align="center">0.75</td><td align="center">0.84</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Wooden pencil</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">3.82</td><td align="center">1.63</td><td align="center">3.61</td><td align="center">2.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">3.79</td><td align="center">1.60</td><td align="center">3.36</td><td align="center">1.77</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.82</td><td align="center">1.12</td><td align="center">1.71</td><td align="center">1.21</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest items</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Safety pin</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">4.75</td><td align="center">1.51</td><td align="center">6.21</td><td align="center">2.35</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">4.50</td><td align="center">1.32</td><td align="center">5.50</td><td align="center">1.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.32</td><td align="center">0.67</td><td align="center">1.79</td><td align="center">1.32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bed sheets</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">6.14</td><td align="center">2.16</td><td align="center">7.25</td><td align="center">2.38</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">5.79</td><td align="center">2.10</td><td align="center">6.36</td><td align="center">2.30</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">0.96</td><td align="center">0.79</td><td align="center">1.82</td><td align="center">1.56</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Milk Carton</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">4.75</td><td align="center">1.74</td><td align="center">4.75</td><td align="center">1.97</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">4.43</td><td align="center">1.67</td><td align="center">4.25</td><td align="center">1.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.04</td><td align="center">1.07</td><td align="center">1.57</td><td align="center">1.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nail</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">4.14</td><td align="center">1.67</td><td align="center">5.07</td><td align="center">2.42</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">3.96</td><td align="center">1.53</td><td align="center">4.32</td><td align="center">1.95</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.43</td><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center">2.11</td><td align="center">1.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pretest composite score</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">3.91</td><td align="center">1.26</td><td align="center">4.21</td><td align="center">1.56</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">3.69</td><td align="center">1.24</td><td align="center">3.70</td><td align="center">1.33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.29</td><td align="center">0.68</td><td align="center">1.21</td><td align="center">0.84</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest composite score</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">4.95</td><td align="center">1.24</td><td align="center">5.82</td><td align="center">1.73</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">4.67</td><td align="center">1.18</td><td align="center">5.11</td><td align="center">1.48</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">1.19</td><td align="center">0.54</td><td align="center">1.82</td><td align="center">1.09</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186883831-11">Analysis</hd> <p>To explore the first research question, multiple <emph>t</emph> tests were conducted to evaluate whether participants in the academically diverse dyads generated higher divergent thinking scores (fluency, flexibility, and originality) compared to participants in the similar dyads.</p> <p>To explore the second research question, the dependent variables were changes in fluency, flexibility, and originality scores (i.e., differences between posttest and pretest scores). A number larger than zero indicated a higher individual score after the collaborative activity. Multiple <emph>t</emph> tests (<emph>α</emph> = 0.05) with Bonferroni's adjustment were used to evaluate if there was a significant difference between post and pretest means on each of the three measures.</p> <p>Besides the means of dyads, we analyzed scores from dyads' four items to assess patterns of team work over time. Thus, two supplemental questions were added to the main research questions: Do dyads exhibit different scores across the four items? Do two types of dyads demonstrate different patterns of score change over time? To address these questions and explore the influence of dyad type and time on divergent thinking scores, Linear Mixed Modeling was conducted. This analysis method was specifically chosen to accurately model the complexity of our longitudinal data, incorporating multiple fixed effects (time and dyad type, and their interaction) and random effects (variations in intercept and slope of time across dyads). Separate models were created for the three outcome scores: fluency, flexibility, and originality. The data analysis was conducted using R Version 4.3.2.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-12">Results</hd> <p>For the first research question, the result was significant only on the mean scores of originality, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref119">26</reflink>) = 2.38, <emph>p</emph> = 0.025, 95% CI [1.33, 1.83]. Participants in diverse dyads (<emph>M</emph> = 2.38, SD = 1.25) demonstrated significantly higher mean originality scores than those in the similar dyad (<emph>M</emph> = 1.39, SD = 0.91). No significant mean differences were found for fluency and flexibility. The magnitude of the dyad originality score represents a large effect size (<emph>d</emph> = 0.98) that provides 0.67 power. Table 5 provides the results of <emph>t</emph> test, effect sizes, and descriptive information.</p> <p>5 TABLE Results of t tests and descriptive statistics fluency, flexibility, and originality by dyad.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Outcome</th><th align="center">Dyad</th><th align="center">95% CI for mean difference</th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center">df</th><th align="center">Sig. (two‐tailed)</th><th align="center"><italic>d</italic></th></tr><tr><th align="center">Diverse dyad</th><th align="center">Similar dyad</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center">12.29</td><td align="center">3.02</td><td align="center">10.95</td><td align="center">2.79</td><td align="center">−0.92, 3.59</td><td align="center">1.22</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">0.233</td><td align="center">0.48</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center">11.46</td><td align="center">2.72</td><td align="center">10.64</td><td align="center">2.72</td><td align="center">−1.29, 2.94</td><td align="center">0.80</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">0.431</td><td align="center">0.33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center">2.38</td><td align="center">1.25</td><td align="center">1.39</td><td align="center">0.91</td><td align="center">0.13, 1.83</td><td align="center">2.38*</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">0.025</td><td align="center">0.94</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note:</emph> *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</p> <p>For the second research question, the result was significant, favoring individual students who worked in the academically diverse dyad, for changes in fluency scores, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref120">54</reflink>) = 2.31, <emph>p</emph> = 0.025. Participants in diverse dyads (<emph>M</emph> = 1.61, SD = 0.99) had significantly higher increased fluency scores than those in similar dyads (<emph>M</emph> = 1.04, SD = 0.86). Participants in diverse dyads also experienced higher mean score increases in originality, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref121">54</reflink>) = 4.44, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. Participants in diverse dyads (<emph>M</emph> = 0.62, SD = 0.69) generated more original ideas in the posttest than in the pretest, whereas participants in similar dyads (<emph>M</emph> = −0.10, SD = 0.51) generated lower mean scores in the posttest than in the pretest. Group differences in flexibility change scores revealed a marginal trend, but were not significant, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref122">54</reflink>) = 1.79, <emph>p</emph> = 0.08. All mean differences represented substantial effect sizes (<emph>d</emph>; Cohen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref123">11</reflink>]). Changes in individual test scores displayed a large effect size for originality (<emph>d</emph> = 1.15) which provides representative 0.98 power, and medium effect sizes for fluency (<emph>d</emph> = 0.63) and flexibility (<emph>d</emph> = 0.44). The results of the <emph>t</emph> tests, effect sizes, and descriptive information of the dyad test are shown in Table 6.</p> <p>6 TABLE Results of t tests and descriptive statistics the difference between the posttest and pretest of fluency, flexibility, and originality by dyad.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Outcome</th><th align="center">Dyad</th><th align="center">95% CI for mean difference</th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center">df</th><th align="center">Sig. (two‐tailed)</th><th align="center"><italic>d</italic></th></tr><tr><th align="center">Diverse dyad</th><th align="center">Similar dyad</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">DifFluency</td><td align="center">1.61</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">1.04</td><td align="center">0.86</td><td align="center">0.75, 1.07</td><td align="center">2.31*</td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">0.025</td><td align="center">0.63</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DifFlexibility</td><td align="center">1.41</td><td align="center">0.90</td><td align="center">0.98</td><td align="center">0.90</td><td align="center">−0.05, 0.91</td><td align="center">1.79</td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">0.079</td><td align="center">0.44</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DifOriginality</td><td align="center">0.62</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">−0.10</td><td align="center">0.51</td><td align="center">0.39, 1.04</td><td align="center">4.44***</td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">0.000</td><td align="center">1.15</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note:</emph> DifFluency, DifFlexibility, and DifOriginality are the difference between the posttest and pretest of these three quantities. <emph>D</emph> is the Cohen's <emph>d</emph> of effect size. *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <p>For the two supplemental questions, the linear mixed model analysis for fluency indicated that main effects of time and dyad type were not significant (<emph>p</emph>s < 0.05), but there was a significant interaction between time and dyad type, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref124">42</reflink>) = 2.18, <emph>p</emph> = 0.035. Specifically, academically diverse dyads experienced more pronounced increases in fluency scores across time, relative to academically similar dyads, explaining 30% of variance in the rate of change. The main effect of time on originality scores was significant, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref125">84</reflink>) = −3.89, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, as was the interaction between time and dyad type, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref126">45</reflink>) = 3.01, <emph>p</emph> = 0.003. These findings indicate that originality scores decreased over time; however, this decrease was more pronounced for academically similar dyads. Approximately 100% of variance in the rate of change was explained by dyad type. Contrasting patterns for fluency and originality, main effects of time and dyad type, as well as their interaction, were not significant for flexibility (<emph>p</emph>s < 0.05). Results are illustrated in Table 7 and Figure 1.</p> <p>7 TABLE Linear mixed model analyses for the fixed and random effects of time and dyad type on divergent thinking scores.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center" /><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Fluency</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fixed effect</td><td align="center">Intercept</td><td align="center">10.53</td><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center">12.49***</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Time</td><td align="center">0.28</td><td align="center">0.38</td><td align="center">0.74</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DyadType1</td><td align="center">−0.41</td><td align="center">1.19</td><td align="center">−0.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Time:DyadType1</td><td align="center">1.16</td><td align="center">0.53</td><td align="center">2.18*</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">Variance</td><td align="center">SD</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Random effect</td><td align="center">Intercept (DyadID)</td><td align="center">5.33</td><td align="center">2.31</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Time (DyadID)</td><td align="center">0.68</td><td align="center">0.82</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Residual</td><td align="center">6.59</td><td align="center">2.57</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Flexibility</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fixed effect</td><td align="center">Intercept</td><td align="center">10.32</td><td align="center">0.79</td><td align="center">13.09***</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Time</td><td align="center">0.21</td><td align="center">0.34</td><td align="center">0.62</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DyadType1</td><td align="center">−0.42</td><td align="center">1.12</td><td align="center">−0.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Time:DyadType1</td><td align="center">0.83</td><td align="center">0.49</td><td align="center">1.70.</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">Variance</td><td align="center">SD</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Random effect</td><td align="center">Intercept (DyadID)</td><td align="center">4.60</td><td align="center">2.14</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Time (DyadID)</td><td align="center">0.49</td><td align="center">0.70</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Residual</td><td align="center">5.87</td><td align="center">2.42</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Originality</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fixed effect</td><td align="center">Intercept</td><td align="center">1.97</td><td align="center">0.32</td><td align="center">6.19***</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Time</td><td align="center">−0.39</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">−3.89***</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DyadType1</td><td align="center">0.35</td><td align="center">0.45</td><td align="center">0.78</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Time:DyadType1</td><td align="center">0.42</td><td align="center">0.14</td><td align="center">3.01**</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">Variance</td><td align="center">SD</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Random effect</td><td align="center">Intercept (DyadID)</td><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">0.97</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Time (DyadID)</td><td align="center">0.00</td><td align="center">0.00</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Residual</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">0.83</td><td align="center" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note:</emph> DyadType1 refers to the academically diverse dyads, while the academically similar dyads served as the reference group. *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01mar25/jocb1539-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1539-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Effect of time and dyad type on fluency, flexibility, and originality." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186883831-14">Discussion</hd> <p>Building on the growing number of studies investigating broader elements of group diversity's effects on creativity, the present research examined the influence of academic diversity in dyads on divergent thinking scores during collaborative and individual follow‐up tasks. Results indicated that during collaborative tasks, academically diverse dyads outperformed academically similar dyads on the AUT's originality subscale, whereas fluency and flexibility scores did not differ. During individual follow‐up tasks, participants who had previously worked in academically diverse dyads demonstrated more growth in fluency and originality scores than did participants who had worked in academically similar dyads; flexibility did not differ. Finally, linear mixed modeling analyses revealed that academically diverse dyads experienced a more pronounced increase in fluency scores over time, whereas academically similar dyads demonstrated a more pronounced decrease in originality scores over time.</p> <p>The first set of research questions in the present study explored whether dyads with diverse academic backgrounds would outperform dyads with similar academic backgrounds on AUT fluency, flexibility, and originality. Although fluency and flexibility showed no between‐group differences during collaborative work, academically diverse dyads generated more original uses than academically similar groups. This finding contrasts Lu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref127">46</reflink>]), who found that more academic diversity increased flexibility, decreased fluency, and did not affect uniqueness in dyads' AUT performance. These contradictory findings could be attributable to differences in group assignment procedures. Specifically, Lu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref128">46</reflink>]) included mainly Investigative (I) disciplines (science and social science majors) in their study, whereas the present study included more diverse majors and organized them according to R, I, A, S, E, and C categorizations. It could be that having a more diverse array of majors influenced the observed effects, but further research is needed to clarify the influences of specific academic disciplines.</p> <p>Additionally, the approach to facilitating teamwork differed significantly. In the present study, each item was given 4 min for unrestricted communication, encouraging a rapid exchange of ideas, which allowed participants to effortlessly build on their partner's ideas due to the free‐flowing nature of the conversation. In contrast, Lu et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref129">46</reflink>]) method was more structured, with participants taking turns to present a single idea or opting to "pass," which might have constrained idea generation. This procedural disparity likely impacted the dynamics of teamwork and the outcomes observed. Furthermore, the sample in the present study consisted of graduate students, whereas Lu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref130">46</reflink>]) used undergraduate students. There are considerable developmental differences between domain experts and domain novices (e.g., Fayena‐Tawil et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref131">19</reflink>]; Ivcevic and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref132">34</reflink>]; Yokochi and Okada [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref133">102</reflink>]), and experts score higher than novices on AUT originality and other domain‐general creative tasks (Teng et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref134">91</reflink>]). Together, the specific academic makeup of groups and group members' level of creative development represent factors that should be explored further. Although certain interactions remain unclear, the present results add to a consistent body of work that indicates functional and knowledge diversity generally has positive effects on group creativity (e.g., Hundschell et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref135">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>The second set of questions addressed in the present study was whether academic diversity enhanced individual AUT performance following collaborative tasks. Compared to individuals who worked in academically similar dyads, individuals who participated in academically diverse dyads showed greater performance increases in fluency and originality, but not flexibility. Thus, engaging in 16 min of collaborative activity in academically diverse dyads improved divergent thinking not only during group work, but also during follow‐up individual tasks. This finding aligns with sociocultural theories of creative thinking and research on personal perspectives and knowledge in group work, which together suggest that diverse perspectives and knowledge help individuals step outside limited frames of thinking and enlarge their pool of creative ideas (Glăveanu [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref136">20</reflink>]; Sawyer [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref137">86</reflink>]). In the present study, exposure to diverse knowledge and perspectives benefitted creativity both during and after collaborative work, suggesting that academic diversity could produce follow‐up effects and aligning with research showing similar delayed benefits (Tang [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref138">90</reflink>]).</p> <p>The supplemental questions explored whether divergent thinking scores exhibit varying patterns over time and whether these patterns differ across distinct dyad types. Focusing on individual divergent thinking, Paek et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref139">62</reflink>]) suggested that there is a curvilinear relationship between time on task and divergent thinking, wherein performance improves with additional time but eventually slows down. Contrasting studies on individuals, the current findings revealed a decline in originality over time, highlighting potentially different mechanisms in individual and group divergent thinking that require further investigation. Although specific patterns were disparate to a degree, Lu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref140">46</reflink>]) also found benefits to group diversity over time. This may be explained by the earlier discussion of the mixed effects of diversity in dyads, as diverse groups likely overcame language barriers, competing interests, and gaps in problem representation during group work, gradually forming a cohesive, complimentary understanding of the task. Together, these results suggest that group diversity could lead to delayed effects, serving to enhance and sustain idea generation over time.</p> <p>According to Sawyer's ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref141">85</reflink>]) proposed mechanisms of collaborative emergence, individuals experience unpredictability when brainstorming in groups. This unpredictability of ideas can both challenge and threaten individuals, leading to fluctuations in the quantity of ideas produced. Furthermore, diversity within dyads can reduce levels of agreement and overlapping mental representations (Sawyer [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref142">86</reflink>]), leading to heterogeneous conceptualizations of what constitutes an original idea and, consequently, more original ideas. In contrast, individuals from similar academic backgrounds hold more homogenous views regarding originality (i.e., smaller gaps; Reiter‐Palmon and Leone [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref143">77</reflink>]) and increases available information and perspectives (Lu et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref144">46</reflink>]). In the present study, academic diversity had immediate, positive effects on ideational originality, but not on fluency and flexibility. Certain effects of academic diversity increased over time, corresponding with other research highlighting the delayed benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration (Torrisi et al. [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref145">95</reflink>]).</p> <p>During both individual and dyad activities, fluency, flexibility, and originality were differentially influenced by academic diversity. Flexibility is commonly overlooked because of its shared variance with fluency (Runco [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref146">80</reflink>]), yet the information‐processing perspective predicts that diversity in perspectives and knowledge would enhance flexibility in team members' thinking (Aggarwal and Woolley [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref147">2</reflink>]). Although results from Lu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref148">46</reflink>]) aligned with this prediction, flexibility was unaffected by academic diversity in the present study. A possible interpretation of this discrepancy again relates to the current sample consisting of graduate students rather than undergraduates; after years of studying and researching within a domain, graduate students may have adopted more rigid disciplinary perspectives that were less susceptible to change during short‐term tasks. In contrast, fluency increased following collaborative work in academically diverse dyads, corroborating claims that groups are more productive when they consist of diverse members (Page [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref149">63</reflink>]). Although the results of fluency, flexibility, and originality differed, researchers have argued that originality is more closely tied to creativity than other dimensions of divergent thinking (Runco and Jaeger [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref150">82</reflink>]). Given the centrality of originality, the present results are promising, as participants' originality consistently benefitted from academic diversity.</p> <p>Overall, this study contributes valuable insights into the underexplored area of dyadic collaboration, addressing a gap in research that often focuses on individuals or larger groups. The results indicate that working in dyads with individuals from different academic disciplines, compared with more homogenous dyads, can enhance divergent thinking both during collaborative work and in subsequent individual tasks. Additionally, the use of linear mixed modeling revealed that the positive effects of diversity increased over time, highlighting the dynamic nature of diverse dyadic interactions and their potential to sustain and amplify creativity with extended collaboration.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-15">Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research</hd> <p>Several limitations should be considered when interpreting this study's results. First, although the effect size provided acceptable power, with 56 participants forming 28 dyads, the sample size was small. This led to a relatively small, possibly unrepresentative pool of ideas forming the basis for ideational originality criteria. The small number of dyads also led to imbalanced RIASEC categories, and future research could benefit from investigating characteristics of each academic discipline and their specific influences on dyad work.</p> <p>Second, although most graduate students who use English as a second language had strong English skills, some required a dictionary during the test or used illustrations alongside written or oral communication to supplement their explanations during the dyad activities. In addition, some participants provided more details when they expressed their thoughts orally than when writing answers. For example, one participant said to the partner, "The circus uses nails during the show; the nails might stick on a wood board," but only wrote "nails bed" on the test paper. Previous research has used the think aloud method to analyze oral, rather than written, expressions when solving divergent thinking problems (Boldt and Strub [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref151">6</reflink>]; Khandwalla [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref152">39</reflink>]). Future work could control the mode of expression and compare oral and written expression for divergent thinking performance.</p> <p>Third, the AUT manual has not been updated to reflect the modern, technical world. Because materials and functions of objects such as tires, eyeglasses, chairs, and watches have shifted, the test's scoring criteria might not align with contemporary responses. Indeed, other measures, such as the Remote Associates Test (Mednick [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref153">51</reflink>]), have needed updates (e.g., Bowden and Jung‐Beeman [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref154">7</reflink>]) to remain relevant for a current audience. Additionally, culture or knowledge relevant to the given task can impact group creativity (Chua [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref155">10</reflink>]). Future research could explore how varying levels of task relevance influence creativity by incorporating a wider range of creative or divergent thinking tasks, rather than relying solely on common items.</p> <p>Fourth, the current study involved a relatively simple task that was administered within a short period of time (30–40 min). The relationship between group diversity and creativity is complex and multifaceted (Hundschell et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref156">33</reflink>]; Moirano et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref157">54</reflink>]; Reiter‐Palmon and Leone [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref158">77</reflink>]), and functional and knowledge diversity could offer long‐term benefits by increasing not only the availability of resources (Lu et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref159">46</reflink>]), but also their visibility (Aggarwal and Woolley [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref160">2</reflink>]). Accordingly, longitudinal or naturalistic research might better clarify academic diversity's effects on individual and dyad divergent thinking.</p> <p>Finally, previous studies have suggested that cultural diversity could harm team creativity due to a lack of common understanding, good communication, or conflict among group members (Paletz et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref161">64</reflink>]; Schimmelpfennig et al. [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref162">88</reflink>]; Knippenberg and Schippers [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref163">41</reflink>]). Experimental studies have shown that diverse groups only outperform homogenous groups when members value group diversity and appreciate other members' perspectives (Hoever et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref164">29</reflink>]; Homan et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref165">31</reflink>]). Thus, these cultural factors should be considered in the future research. In addition, the implementation of academic diversity into group work should be provided with the support and resources necessary to ensure cooperation and effective communication (Moirano et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref166">54</reflink>]; Reiter‐Palmon and Leone [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref167">77</reflink>]; Schimmelpfennig et al. [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref168">88</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-16">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current study supplements the existing body of literature investigating group diversity in organizational contexts by offering evidence relevant to academic institutions. As stated by Page ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref169">63</reflink>]), "the business world has become more global ... the homogenous hierarchy has given way to the diverse team" (p. xxi). For graduate students, generating unique ideas is a crucial step toward producing original research, which remains a fundamental goal. Developing creative problem‐solving skills and novel perspectives on persistent research questions is vital for this population. Based on previous research and findings from this study, graduate schools should strongly consider academic diversity in curriculum and instruction design efforts. Cultivating environments supportive of graduate students' divergent thinking skills will benefit students' personal development and capacity to contribute to their respective fields, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration could be helpful in achieving these worthwhile goals.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-17">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Connecticut, under the protocol number H16‐062. All participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-18">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186883831-19">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <ref id="AN0186883831-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186883831-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Acar, S., H. Tadik, D. Myers, C. Van der Sman, and R. Uysal. 2020. " Creativity and Well‐Being: A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Creative Behavior 55, no. 3 : 738 – 751. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.485.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref116" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aggarwal, I., and A. W. Woolley. 2019. " Team Creativity, Cognition, and Cognitive Style Diversity." Management Science 65, no. 4 : 1586 – 1599. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.3001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref75" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Antonio, A. L., M. J. Chang, K. Hakuta, D. A. Kenny, S. Levin, and J. F. Milem. 2004. " Effects of Racial Diversity on Complex Thinking in College Students." Psychological Science 15, no. 8 : 507 – 510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956‐7976.2004.00710.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref110" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barron, F., and D. M. Harrington. 1981. " Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality." Annual Review of Psychology 32, no. 1 : 439 – 476. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, S. T., A. J. Villado, M. A. Lukasik, L. Belau, and A. L. Briggs. 2011. " Getting Specific About Demographic Diversity Variable and Team Performance Relationships: A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Management 37, no. 3 : 709 – 743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref43" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boldt, G. T., and H. Strub. 2023. " Associations Between Drawing Creativity, Task‐Related Divergent Thinking, and Other Creative Subprocesses." Thinking Skills and Creativity 49 : 101332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref154" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bowden, E. M., and M. Jung‐Beeman. 2003. " Normative Data for 144 Compound Remote Associate Problems." Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35 : 634 – 639. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195543.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref33" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, V., M. Tumeo, T. S. Larey, and P. B. Paulus. 1998. " Modeling Cognitive Interactions During Group Brainstorming." Small Group Research 29, no. 4 : 495 – 526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496498294005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref50" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Camargo, A., P. Çelik, and M. Storme. 2020. " Cultural Self‐Efficacy Increases Creativity in Bicultural Dyads: Evidence From Two Dyadic Divergent Thinking Tasks." Thinking Skills and Creativity 38 : 100725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100725.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chua, R. Y. 2018. " Innovating at Cultural Crossroads: How Multicultural Social Networks Promote Idea Flow and Creativity." Journal of Management 44, no. 3 : 1119 – 1146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315601183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. 1992. " A Power Primer." Psychological Bulletin 112, no. 1 : 155 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.112.1.155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coskun, H. 2005. " Cognitive Stimulation With Convergent and Divergent Thinking Exercises in Brainwriting: Incubation, Sequence Priming, and Group Context." Small Group Research 36, no. 4 : 466 – 498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405276475.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diehl, M., and W. Stroebe. 1987. " Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, no. 3 : 497 – 509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.53.3.497.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diehl, M., and W. Stroebe. 1991. " Productivity Loss in Idea‐Generating Dyads: Tracking Down the Blocking Effect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, no. 3 : 392 – 403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.61.3.392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Dijk, H., M. L. Engen, and D. Knippenberg. 2012. " Defying Conventional Wisdom: A Meta‐Analytical Examination of the Differences Between Demographic and Job‐Related Diversity Relationships With Performance." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119, no. 1 : 38 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donzallaz, M. C., J. M. Haaf, and C. E. Stevenson. 2023. " Creative or Not? Hierarchical Diffusion Modeling of the Creative Evaluation Process." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 49, no. 6 : 849 – 865. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001177.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Dyne, L., and R. Saavedra. 1996. " A Naturalistic Minority Influence Experiment: Effects on Divergent Thinking, Conflict and Originality in Work‐Groups." British Journal of Social Psychology 35, no. 1 : 151 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8309.1996.tb01089.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erwin, A. K., K. Tran, and W. Koutstaal. 2022. " Evaluating the Predictive Validity of Four Divergent Thinking Tasks for the Originality of Design Product Ideation." PLoS One 17, no. 3 : e0265116. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fayena‐Tawil, F., A. Kozbelt, and L. Sitaras. 2011. " Think Global, Act Local: A Protocol Analysis Comparison of Artists' and Nonartists' Cognitions, Metacognitions, and Evaluations While Drawing." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 5, no. 2 : 135 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glăveanu, V. P. 2013. " Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A's Framework." Review of General Psychology 17 : 69 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glăveanu, V. P. 2015. " Creativity as a Sociocultural Act." Journal of Creative Behavior 49 : 165 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glăveanu, V. P., M. Hanchett Hanson, J. Baer, et al. 2020. " Advancing Creativity Theory and Research: A Socio‐Cultural Manifesto." Journal of Creative Behavior 54, no. 3 : 741 – 745. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J. P. 1950. " Creativity." American Psychologist 5, no. 9 : 444 – 454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J. P. 1967. " Creativity: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow." Journal of Creative Behavior 1, no. 1 : 3 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162‐6057.1967.tb00002.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J. P. 1968. Creativity, Intelligence, and Their Educational Implications. EDITS/Knapp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J. P., P. R. Christensen, P. R. Merrifield, and R. C. Wilson. 1978. Alternate Uses: Manual of Instructions and Interpretation. Sheridan Psychological Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, K.‐S., and C. Marvin. 2002. " Multiple Creativities? Investigating Domain‐Specificity of Creativity in Young Children." Gifted Child Quarterly 46, no. 2 : 98 – 109. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey, S. 2013. " A Different Perspective: The Multiple Effects of Deep Level Diversity on Dyad Creativity." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, no. 5 : 822 – 832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoever, I. J., D. van Knippenberg, W. P. van Ginkel, and H. G. Barkema. 2012. " Fostering Team Creativity: Perspective Taking as Key to Unlocking Diversity's Potential." Journal of Applied Psychology 97, no. 5 : 982 – 996. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holland, J. L. 1997. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments. 3rd ed. Psychological Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Homan, A. C., D. Van Knippenberg, G. A. Van Kleef, and C. K. De Dreu. 2007. " Interacting Dimensions of Diversity: Cross‐Categorization and the Functioning of Diverse Work Groups." Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 11, no. 2 : 79 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089‐2699.11.2.79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hülsheger, U. R., N. Anderson, and J. F. Salgado. 2009. " Team‐Level Predictors of Innovation at Work: A Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis Spanning Three Decades of Research." Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 5 : 1128 – 1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hundschell, A., S. Razinskas, J. Backmann, and M. Hoegl. 2022. " The Effects of Diversity on Creativity: A Literature Review and Synthesis." Applied Psychology 71, no. 4 : 1598 – 1634. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivcevic, Z., and J. D. Mayer. 2009. " Mapping Dimensions of Creativity in the Life‐Space." Creativity Research Journal 21, no. 2–3 : 152 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeon, K.‐N., S. M. Moon, and B. French. 2011. " Differential Effects of Divergent Thinking, Domain Knowledge, and Interest on Creative Performance in Art and Math." Creativity Research Journal 23, no. 1 : 60 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.545750.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> John‐Steiner, V. 1992. " Creative Lives, Creative Tensions." Creativity Research Journal 5 : 99 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419209534426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J. C. 2016. Creativity 101. 2nd ed. Springer Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826129536.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J. C. 2023. The Creativity Advantage. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khandwalla, P. N. 1993. " An Exploratory Investigation of Divergent Thinking Through Protocol Analysis." Creativity Research Journal 6, no. 3 : 241 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419309534481.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, K. H. 2008. " Meta‐Analyses of the Relationship of Creative Achievement to Both IQ and Divergent Thinking Test Scores." Journal of Creative Behavior 42, no. 2 : 106 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162‐6057.2008.tb01290.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Knippenberg, D., and M. C. Schippers. 2007. " Work Group Diversity." Annual Review of Psychology 58 : 515 – 541. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C. S., and D. J. Therriault. 2013. " The Cognitive Underpinnings of Creative Thought: A Latent Variable Analysis Exploring the Roles of Intelligence and Working Memory in Three Creative Thinking Processes." Intelligence 41, no. 5 : 306 – 320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leung, A. K. Y., and C. Y. Chiu. 2010. " Multicultural Experience, Idea Receptiveness, and Creativity." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 41, no. 5–6 : 723 – 741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110361707.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leung, A. K. Y., B. Koh, R. Phang, S. T. H. Lee, and T. Huang. 2021. " Linking Creativity to Psychological Well‐Being: Integrative Insights From the Instrumental Emotion Regulation Theory." Journal of Creative Behavior 56, no. 2 : 194 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.524.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long, H. 2014. " An Empirical Review of Research Methodologies and Methods in Creativity Studies (2003–2012)." Creativity Research Journal 26, no. 4 : 427 – 438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.961781.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, K., X. Qiao, Q. Yun, and N. Hao. 2021. " Educational Diversity and Group Creativity: Evidence From fNIRS Hyperscanning." NeuroImage 243 : 118564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118564.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maddux, W. W., and A. D. Galinsky. 2009. " Cultural Borders and Mental Barriers: The Relationship Between Living Abroad and Creativity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, no. 5 : 1047 – 1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014861.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKay, A. S., R. Reiter‐Palmon, and J. C. Kaufman, eds. 2020. Creative Success in Teams. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeod, P. L., S. A. Lobel, and T. H. Cox. 1996. " Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Dyads." Small Dyad Research 27, no. 2 : 248 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496272003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mednick, S. 1962. " The Associative Basis of the Creative Process." Psychological Review 69, no. 3 : 220 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mednick, S. A. 1968. " The Remote Associates Test." Journal of Creative Behavior 2 : 213 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162‐6057.1968.tb00104.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milgram, R. M., and N. A. Milgram. 1976. " Creative Thinking and Creative Performance in Israeli Students." Journal of Educational Psychology 68, no. 3 : 255 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.68.3.255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milliken, F. J., C. A. Bartel, and T. R. Kurtzberg. 2003. Diversity and Creativity in Work Dyads: A Dynamic Perspective on the Affective and Cognitive Processes That Link Diversity and Performance, 32 – 62. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moirano, R., M. A. Sánchez, and L. Štěpánek. 2020. " Creative Interdisciplinary Collaboration: A Systematic Literature Review." Thinking Skills and Creativity 35 : 100626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100626.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullen, B., C. Johnson, and E. Salas. 1991. " Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta‐Analytic Integration." Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12, no. 1 : 3 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nemeth, C. J. 1986. " Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence." Psychological Review 93, no. 1 : 23 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.93.1.23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nemeth, C. J. 2010. " Minority Influence Theory." In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 2, vol. 2, 362 – 378. SAGE Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nemeth, C. J., and J. L. Kwan. 1987. " Minority Influence, Divergent Thinking and Detection of Correct Solutions." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 17, no. 9 : 788 – 799. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.1987.tb00339.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nijstad, B. A., C. K. De Dreu, E. F. Rietzschel, and M. Baas. 2010. " The Dual Pathway to Creativity Model: Creative Ideation as a Function of Flexibility and Persistence." European Review of Social Psychology 21, no. 1 : 34 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nijstad, B. A., and W. Stroebe. 2006. " How the Group Affects the Mind: A Cognitive Model of Idea Generation in Groups." Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Inc 10, no. 3 : 186 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Reilly, C. A., III, K. Y. Williams, and S. Barsade. 1998. " Group Demography and Innovation: Does Diversity Help? " In Composition, edited by D. H. Gruenfeld, 183 – 207. Elsevier Science/JAI Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paek, S. H., A. M. A. Alabbasi, S. Acar, and M. A. Runco. 2021. " Is More Time Better for Divergent Thinking? A Meta‐Analysis of the Time‐On‐Task Effect on Divergent Thinking." Thinking Skills and Creativity 41 : 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100894.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Page, S. E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paletz, S. B. F., E. Miron‐Spektor, and C. Lin. 2014. " A Cultural Lens on Interpersonal Conflict and Creativity in Multicultural Environments." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8, no. 2 : 237 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035927.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paletz, S. B. F., K. Peng, M. Erez, and C. Maslach. 2004. " Ethnic Composition and Its Differential Impact on Dyad Processes in Diverse Teams." Small Dyad Research 35, no. 2 : 128 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403258793.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulus, P. 2000. " Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea‐Generating Groups." Applied Psychology 49, no. 2 : 237 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464‐0597.00013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulus, P., and B. Nijstad, eds. 2003. Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.001.0001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulus, P. B., and V. R. Brown. 2007. " Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive‐Social‐Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming." Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1, no. 1 : 248 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751‐9004.2007.00006.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulus, P. B., and H. C. Yang. 2000. " Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, no. 1 : 76 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettigrew, T. F. 1998. " Intergroup Contact Theory." Annual Review of Psychology 49, no. 1 : 65 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plucker, J. A., R. A. Beghetto, and G. T. Dow. 2004. " Why Isn't Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research." Educational Psychologist 39, no. 2 : 83 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puryear, J. S., T. Kettler, and A. N. Rinn. 2017. " Relationships of Personality to Differential Conceptions of Creativity: A Systematic Review." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 11, no. 1 : 59 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000079.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter‐Palmon, R. 2011. " Introduction to Special Issue: The Psychology of Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 5, no. 1 : 1 – 2. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter‐Palmon, R., and N. J. Arreola. 2015. " Does Generating Multiple Ideas Lead to Increased Creativity? A Comparison of Generating One Idea vs. Many." Creativity Research Journal 27, no. 4 : 369 – 374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1087274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter‐Palmon, R., A. E. Herman, and F. J. Yammarino. 2008. " Creativity and Cognitive Processes: Multi‐Level Linkages Between Individual and Team Cognition." Research in Multi‐Level Issues 7 : 203 – 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475‐9144(07)00009‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter‐Palmon, R., V. Kennel, and J. C. Kaufman, eds. 2018. Individual Creativity in the Workplace. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter‐Palmon, R., and S. Leone. 2019. " Facilitating Creativity in Interdisciplinary Design Teams Using Cognitive Processes: A Review." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 233, no. 2 : 385 – 394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406217753236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothenberg, A. 1971. " The Process of Janusian Thinking in Creativity." Archives of General Psychiatry 24, no. 3 : 195 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1971.01750090001001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothenberg, A. 1996. " The Janusian Process in Scientific Creativity." Creativity Research Journal 9, no. 2–3 : 207 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0902&3_8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A. 1985. " Reliability and Convergent Validity of Ideational Flexibility as a Function of Academic Achievement." Perceptual and Motor Skills 61, no. 3 : 1075 – 1081. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1985.61.3f.1075.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A., and S. Acar. 2012. " Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential." Creativity Research Journal 24, no. 1 : 66 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A., and G. J. Jaeger. 2012. " The Standard Definition of Creativity." Creativity Research Journal 24, no. 1 : 92 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Said‐Metwaly, S., C. L. Taylor, A. Camarda, and B. Barbot. 2024. " Divergent Thinking and Creative Achievement—How Strong Is the Link? An Updated Meta‐Analysis." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 18, no. 5 : 869 – 881. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000507.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Said‐Metwaly, S., W. Van den Noortgate, and E. Kyndt. 2017. " Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review." Theories–Research‐Applications 4 : 238 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra‐2017‐0013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, R. K. 2003. Improvised Dialogues: Emergence and Creativity in Conversation. Greenwood Publishing Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, R. K. 2010. " Individual and Group Creativity." In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by J. C. Kaufman and R. J. Sternberg, 366 – 380. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, R. K. 2017. Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. 2nd. ed. Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schimmelpfennig, R., L. Razek, E. Schnell, and M. Muthukrishna. 2021. " Paradox of Diversity in the Collective Brain." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377 : 316. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, G. K., M. L. Maznevski, A. Voigt, and K. Jonsen. 2010. " Unraveling the Effects of Cultural Diversity in Teams: A Meta‐Analysis of Research on Multicultural Work Groups." Journal of International Business Studies 41 : 690 – 709. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, M. 2019. " Fostering Creativity in Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Teams: The VICTORY Model." Frontiers in Psychology 10 : 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teng, J., X. Wang, K. Lu, X. Qiao, and N. Hao. 2021. " Domain‐Specific and Domain‐General Creativity Differences Between Expert and Novice Designers." Creativity Research Journal 34, no. 1 : 55 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1997175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E. P. 1970. " Dyadic Interaction as a Facilitator of Gifted Performance." Gifted Child Quarterly 14, no. 3 : 139 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627001400301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E. P. 1971. " Stimulation, Enjoyment, and Originality in Dyadic Creativity." Journal of Educational Psychology 62, no. 1 : 45 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030729.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E. P. 2008. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms‐Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Scholastic Testing Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrisi, V. S., S. Manfredi, I. Iacopini, and V. Latora. 2019. " Creative Connectivity Project—A Network Based Approach to Understand Correlations Between Interdisciplinary Group Dynamics and Creative Performance." In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Towards a New Innovation Landscape, E and PDE 2019, September, 1–6, 530 – 535. Design Society. https://doi.org/10.35199/epde2019.24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vincent, A. S., B. P. Decker, and M. D. Mumford. 2002. " Divergent Thinking, Intelligence, and Expertise: A Test of Alternative Models." Creativity Research Journal 14, no. 2 : 163 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace, C. E., and S. W. Russ. 2015. " Pretend Play, Divergent Thinking, and Math Achievement in Girls: A Longitudinal Study." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 9, no. 3 : 296 – 305. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, H.‐C., S. R. Fussell, and D. Cosley. 2011. " From Diversity to Creativity: Stimulating Group Brainstorming With Cultural Differences and Conversationally‐Retrieved Pictures." In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 265 – 274. ACM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, S., and O. Wilhelm. 2022. " Is Flexibility More Than Fluency and Originality? " Journal of Intelligence 10, no. 4 : 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040096.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, K. D. 2010. " Dyads Can Be Groups (And Often Are)." Small Group Research 41, no. 2 : 268 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358619.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xue, H., K. Lu, and N. Hao. 2018. " Cooperation Makes Two Less‐Creative Individuals Turn Into a Highly‐Creative Pair." NeuroImage 172 : 527 – 537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.02.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yokochi, S., and T. Okada. 2020. " The Process of Art‐Making and Creative Expertise: An Analysis of Artists' Process Modification." Journal of Creative Behavior 55, no. 2 : 532 – 545. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.472.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xiaochen Liu; Gregory T. Boldt; Donald J. Leu and James C. Kaufman</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref165"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1461982
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Two's Company: How Academic Diversity in Dyads Enhances Divergent Thinking
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xiaochen+Liu%22">Xiaochen Liu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4060-9091">0000-0003-4060-9091</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gregory+T%2E+Boldt%22">Gregory T. Boldt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6135-2689">0000-0002-6135-2689</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Donald+J%2E+Leu%22">Donald J. Leu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9269-653X">0000-0002-9269-653X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22James+C%2E+Kaufman%22">James C. Kaufman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0595-2820">0000-0003-0595-2820</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. 2025 59(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Dynamics%22">Group Dynamics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Universities%22">Research Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity+Tests%22">Creativity Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Innovation%22">Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Task+Analysis%22">Task Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Productivity%22">Productivity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Concept+Formation%22">Concept Formation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Novelty+%28Stimulus+Dimension%29%22">Novelty (Stimulus Dimension)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.1539
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175<br />2162-6057
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Group diversity is an active topic in research as studies examine how differences in background, culture, job position, gender, and ethnicity can all impact group creativity. One relatively overlooked component is how diversity in academic knowledge affects group and individual creativity. In this study, 56 graduate students from a research university in the United States were paired into a dyad with another academically similar or diverse student. They then took the Alternate Uses Test (AUT) alone, as a team, and then alone again. The AUT was used to obtain three divergent thinking scores--fluency, flexibility, and originality. The scores were analyzed to determine if graduate students in academically diverse dyads worked better together (and, subsequently, alone) compared to academically similar dyads. The results showed that academically diverse dyads had significantly higher scores on originality for both increases in individual task scores and the team creativity task, as well as higher fluency scores compared to academically similar dyads. In addition, the results suggest that academically similar and diverse dyads demonstrate varying patterns of fluency and originality scores over time. Results indicated that embracing academic diversity can lead to both dyads and, subsequently, individuals being more productive in generating novel ideas.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1461982
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461982
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.1539
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Group Dynamics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Task Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Productivity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Concept Formation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Novelty (Stimulus Dimension)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Two's Company: How Academic Diversity in Dyads Enhances Divergent Thinking
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xiaochen Liu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gregory T. Boldt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Donald J. Leu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: James C. Kaufman
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-6057
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1