Cited by 31Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceCognitive Science and Education ResearchPsychological and Educational Research Studies

The (Dis)Pleasures of Creativity: Spontaneous Eye Blink Rate during Divergent and Convergent Thinking Depends on Individual Differences in Positive and Negative Affect

Open access
de Rooij, Alwin, Vromans, Ruben D.·2020·The Journal of Creative Behavior

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that individual differences in affect and motivation predict divergent and convergent thinking performance, two thinking processes involved in creative idea generation. Individual differences in affect and motivation also predict spontaneous eye blink rate ( sEBR ) during divergent and convergent thinking; and sEBR predicts divergent and convergent thinking performance. This study investigates experimentally whether the relationship between sEBR and divergent and convergent thinking depends on individual differences in affect and motivation. Eighty‐two participants completed the Emotion/motivation‐related Divergent and Convergent thinking styles Scale ( EDICOS ; G. Soroa et al., 2015), performed the alternative uses task ( AUT ; divergent thinking) or the remote associates task ( RAT ; convergent thinking), while their sEBR was captured with an eye‐tracker. The results showed that individual differences in positive affect positively correlated with sEBR for the AUT , whereas individual differences in negative affect positively correlated with sEBR for the RAT . Furthermore, the interaction between individual differences in positive and negative affect and sEBR predicted divergent and convergent thinking performance. The contribution of our study is therefore that individual differences in positive and negative affect can both positively correlate with sEBR during divergent and convergent thinking; and that this predicts divergent and convergent thinking performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jocb.379

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Rooij, A., & Vromans, R. D.
Affiliations
  • Tilburg University
  • Tilburg University (NL)
Venue
The Journal of Creative Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-09-27
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
436-452
ISSN
  • 0022-0175 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-6057
OpenAlex
W2893837894
Cited by
31
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Creative Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
Keywords
divergent thinking, convergent thinking, positive affect, negative affect, individual differences, creativity, motivation, alternative uses task, remote associates task, eye tracking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review