How to Make Full Use of Human Unconscious Thought System in Creative Tasks? The Positive Role of Performance Contingent Reward
Corresponding Author
Ran Ding
School of Preschool Education, Chongqing University of Education, Chongqing, China
Centre for Eye and Vision Research, Hong Kong, China
Correspondence:
Bo Yang ([email protected]) Or Ran Ding ([email protected])
Search for more papers by this authorBo Yang
School of Preschool Education, Chongqing University of Education, Chongqing, China
Search for more papers by this authorXiaolin Mei
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ran Ding
School of Preschool Education, Chongqing University of Education, Chongqing, China
Centre for Eye and Vision Research, Hong Kong, China
Correspondence:
Bo Yang ([email protected]) Or Ran Ding ([email protected])
Search for more papers by this authorBo Yang
School of Preschool Education, Chongqing University of Education, Chongqing, China
Search for more papers by this authorXiaolin Mei
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
Search for more papers by this authorFunding: This work was supported by Chongqing Social Science Planning Project, 2023BS090.
Ran Ding, Bo Yang, Xiaolin Mei, and Tingni Li contributed equally to this work.
ABSTRACT
When people are working on creative tasks, they make progress in conscious thought (CT) and unconscious thought (UT) processes. UT occurs outside conscious awareness, and unlike CT, it is independent of working memory resources. Previous studies suggest UT is more influential under certain conditions, known as the UT effect. Typically, these studies utilize a UT paradigm where participants are divided into CT and UT groups: the CT group reflects on the task, while the UT group engages in a distraction. However, UT effect is inconsistent across studies. This study aims to explore the condition under which UT effect works and how to facilitate it. By manipulating performance-contingent reward, this study compared the creativity of UT and CT in reward and non-reward conditions under a modified UT paradigm (N = 179). Creativity was measured by a divergent thinking task (the unusual uses task). Results indicated the fluency and originality in the reward condition were higher than non-reward condition for the UT group. What's more, UT surpassed CT in fluency and originality only in the reward condition. This study extends UT theory and provides insights in maximizing the benefits of UT, enabling individuals to boost creativity without thinking consciously or consuming working memory resources.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| jocb70001-sup-0001-Supinfo.docxWord 2007 document , 15 KB |
Data S1. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- Abadie, M., and L. Waroquier. 2019. “Evaluating the Benefits of Conscious and Unconscious Thought in Complex Decision Making.” Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6, no. 1: 72–78.
10.1177/2372732218816998 Google Scholar
- Acar, S., K. Berthiaume, K. Grajzel, D. Dumas, C. T. Flemister, and P. Organisciak. 2023. “Applying Automated Originality Scoring to the Verbal Form of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.” Gifted Child Quarterly 67, no. 1: 3–17.
- Amabile, T. M. 1983. “ A Consensual Technique for Creativity Assessment.” In The Social Psychology of Creativity, 37–63. Springer.
10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8_3 Google Scholar
- Anderson, M. C., R. A. Bjork, and E. L. Bjork. 1994. “Remembering Can Cause Forgetting: Retrieval Dynamics in Long-Term Memory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20, no. 5: 1063–1087.
- Baddeley, A. 2007. Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Vol. 45. OuP Oxford.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Baird, B., J. Smallwood, M. D. Mrazek, J. W. Kam, M. S. Franklin, and J. W. Schooler. 2012. “Inspired by Distraction: Mind Wandering Facilitates Creative Incubation.” Psychological Science 23, no. 10: 1117–1122.
- Beda, Z. 2021. The Forgetting Fixation Account of Creative. Incubation Texas A&M University.
- Bos, M. W., A. Dijksterhuis, and R. B. Van Baaren. 2008. “On the Goal-Dependency of Unconscious Thought.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, no. 4: 1114–1120.
- Calder, B. J., and B. M. Staw. 1975. “Self-Perception of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, no. 4: 599–605.
- Condry, J. 1977. “Enemies of Exploration: Self-Initiated Versus Other-Initiated Learning.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, no. 7: 459–477.
- Cseh, G. M., and K. K. Jeffries. 2019. “A Scattered CAT: A Critical Evaluation of the Consensual Assessment Technique for Creativity Research.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 13, no. 2: 159–166.
- de Vries, H. B., and T. I. Lubart. 2019. “Scientific Creativity: Divergent and Convergent Thinking and the Impact of Culture.” Journal of Creative Behavior 53, no. 2: 145–155.
- Dijksterhuis, A., M. W. Bos, L. F. Nordgren, and R. B. Van Baaren. 2006. “On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect.” Science 311, no. 5763: 1005–1007.
- Dijksterhuis, A., M. W. Bos, A. Van der Leij, and R. B. Van Baaren. 2009. “Predicting Soccer Matches After Unconscious and Conscious Thought as a Function of Expertise.” Psychological Science 20, no. 11: 1381–1387.
- Dijksterhuis, A., and M. Strick. 2016. “A Case for Thinking Without Consciousness.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11, no. 1: 117–132.
- Ding, R., Q. Han, R. Li, T. Li, Y. Cui, and P. Wu. 2019. “Unconscious Versus Conscious Thought in Creative Science Problem Finding: Unconscious Thought Showed no Advantage!” Consciousness and Cognition 71: 109–113.
- Eisenberger, R., and J. Aselage. 2009. “Incremental Effects of Reward on Experienced Performance Pressure: Positive Outcomes for Intrinsic Interest and Creativity.” Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 30, no. 1: 95–117.
10.1002/job.543 Google Scholar
- Eisenberger, R., and J. Cameron. 1998. Reward, Intrinsic Interest, and Creativity: New Findings. 53, 676–679. American Psychologist.
- Eisenberger, R., and L. Rhoades. 2001. “Incremental Effects of Reward on Creativity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, no. 4: 728–741.
- Evans, J. S. B. 2003. “In Two Minds: Dual-Process Accounts of Reasoning.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, no. 10: 454–459.
- Evans, J. S. B., and K. E. Stanovich. 2013a. “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8, no. 3: 223–241.
- Evans, J. S. B., and K. E. Stanovich. 2013b. “Theory and Metatheory in the Study of Dual Processing: Reply to Comments.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8, no. 3: 263–271.
- Forgeard, M. J., and A. C. Mecklenburg. 2013. “The Two Dimensions of Motivation and a Reciprocal Model of the Creative Process.” Review of General Psychology 17, no. 3: 255–266.
- Frankish, K., and J. Evans. 2009. “ The Duality of Mind: An Historical Perspective.” In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, 1–29. Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0001 Google Scholar
- Gao, Y., and H. Zhang. 2014. “Unconscious Processing Modulates Creative Problem Solving: Evidence From an Electrophysiological Study.” Consciousness and Cognition 26: 64–73.
- Gilhooly, K. J. 2016. “Incubation and Intuition in Creative Problem Solving.” Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1076.
- Gilhooly, K. J., G. Georgiou, and U. Devery. 2013. “Incubation and Creativity: Do Something Different.” Thinking & Reasoning 19, no. 2: 137–149.
- Goldschmidt, G. 2016. “Linkographic Evidence for Concurrent Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Creative Design.” Creativity Research Journal 28, no. 2: 115–122.
- Guilford, J. P. 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. Macgraw Hill.
- Hassin, R. R. 2013. “Yes It Can: On the Functional Abilities of the Human Unconscious.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8, no. 2: 195–207.
- Huizenga, H. M., R. Wetzels, D. van Ravenzwaaij, and E.-J. Wagenmakers. 2012. “Four Empirical Tests of Unconscious Thought Theory.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 117, no. 2: 332–340.
- Jeffreys, H. 1961. Theory of Probability. Oxford University Press.
- Kang, Y. H., F. H. Petzschner, D. M. Wolpert, and M. N. Shadlen. 2017. “Piercing of Consciousness as a Threshold-Crossing Operation.” Current Biology 27, no. 15: 2285–2295.
- Kasof, J., C. Chen, A. Himsel, and E. Greenberger. 2007. “Values and Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 19, no. 2–3: 105–122.
- Kaufman, J. C., J. Baer, J. C. Cole, and J. D. Sexton. 2008. “A Comparison of Expert and Nonexpert Raters Using the Consensual Assessment Technique.” Creativity Research Journal 20, no. 2: 171–178.
- Marron, T. R., and M. Faust. 2019. “Measuring Spontaneous Processes in Creativity Research.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 64–70.
- McNeish, D. 2016. “On Using Bayesian Methods to Address Small Sample Problems.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 23, no. 5: 750–773.
- Mooneyham, B. W., and J. W. Schooler. 2013. “The Costs and Benefits of Mind-Wandering: A Review.” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie expérimentale 67, no. 1: 11–18.
- Newell, B. R., and T. Rakow. 2011. “Revising Beliefs About the Merit of Unconscious Thought: Evidence in Favor of the Null Hypothesis.” Social Cognition 29, no. 6: 711–726.
- Nieuwenstein, M. R., T. Wierenga, R. D. Morey, et al. 2015. “On Making the Right Choice: A Meta-Analysis and Large-Scale Replication Attempt of the Unconscious Thought Advantage.” Judgment and Decision making 10, no. 1: 1–17.
- Raaijmakers, J. G., and R. M. Shiffrin. 1981. “Search of Associative Memory.” Psychological Review 88, no. 2: 93–134.
- Ritter, S. M., and A. Dijksterhuis. 2014. “Creativity—The Unconscious Foundations of the Incubation Period.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 73722.
- Ritter, S. M., R. B. Van Baaren, and A. Dijksterhuis. 2012. “Creativity: The Role of Unconscious Processes in Idea Generation and Idea Selection.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 7, no. 1: 21–27.
- Robinson, A. 2010. “Chemistry's Visual Origins.” Nature 465: 36.
- Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, no. 1: 54–67.
- Saether, E. A. 2020. “Creativity-Contingent Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity: The Importance of Fair Reward Evaluation Procedures.” Frontiers in Psychology 11: 974.
- Schönbrodt, F. D., E.-J. Wagenmakers, M. Zehetleitner, and M. Perugini. 2017. “Sequential Hypothesis Testing With Bayes Factors: Efficiently Testing Mean Differences.” Psychological Methods 22, no. 2: 322–339.
- Schooler, J. W., J. Smallwood, K. Christoff, T. C. Handy, E. D. Reichle, and M. A. Sayette. 2011. “Meta-Awareness, Perceptual Decoupling and the Wandering Mind.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15, no. 7: 319–326.
- Seifert, C. M., D. E. Meyer, N. Davidson, A. L. Patalano, and I. Yaniv. 1994. Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind hypothesis.
- Sio, U. N., P. Monaghan, and T. Ormerod. 2013. “Sleep on It, but Only if It Is Difficult: Effects of Sleep on Problem Solving.” Memory & Cognition 41: 159–166.
- Smith, S. M., and Z. Beda. 2020. “Old Problems in New Contexts: The Context-Dependent Fixation Hypothesis.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 149, no. 1: 192–197.
- Steele, L. M., T. McIntosh, and C. Higgs. 2017. “ Intrinsic Motivation and Creativity: Opening Up a Black Box.” In Handbook of Research on Leadership and Creativity, edited by Edward Elgar, 100–130. Edward Elgar Publishing.
10.4337/9781784715465.00013 Google Scholar
- Strick, M., A. Dijksterhuis, M. W. Bos, A. Sjoerdsma, R. B. Van Baaren, and L. F. Nordgren. 2011. “A Meta-Analysis on Unconscious Thought Effects.” Social Cognition 29, no. 6: 738–762.
- Taylor, C. L., and J. C. Kaufman. 2021. “The Creative Trait Motivation Scales.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 39: 100763.
- Urban, K., O. Pesout, J. Kombrza, and M. Urban. 2021. “Metacognitively Aware University Students Exhibit Higher Creativity and Motivation to Learn.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 42: 100963.
- Vansteenkiste, M., and E. L. Deci. 2003. “Competitively Contingent Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation: Can Losers Remain Motivated?” Motivation and Emotion 27, no. 4: 273–299.
- Wagenmakers, E.-J., J. Love, M. Marsman, et al. 2018. “Bayesian Inference for Psychology. Part II: Example Applications With JASP.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25, no. 1: 58–76.
- Wetzels, R., D. Matzke, M. D. Lee, J. N. Rouder, G. J. Iverson, and E.-J. Wagenmakers. 2011. “Statistical Evidence in Experimental Psychology: An Empirical Comparison Using 855 t Tests.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, no. 3: 291–298.
- Yang, H., A. Chattopadhyay, K. Zhang, and D. W. Dahl. 2012. “Unconscious Creativity: When Can Unconscious Thought Outperform Conscious Thought?” Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, no. 4: 573–581.
- Zhong, C.-B., A. Dijksterhuis, and A. D. Galinsky. 2008. “The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Creativity.” Psychological Science 19, no. 9: 912–918.
