The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Working memory capacity, mind wandering, and creative cognition: An individual-differences investigation into the benefits of controlled versus spontaneous thought.
Open accessAbstract
Should executive control, as indicated by working memory capacity (WMC) and mind-wandering propensity, help or hinder creativity? Sustained and focused attention should help guide a selective search of solution-relevant information in memory and help inhibit uncreative, yet accessible, ideas. However, unfocused attention and daydreaming should allow mental access to more loosely relevant concepts, remotely linked to commonplace solutions. Three individual-differences studies inserted incubation periods into one or two divergent thinking tasks and tested whether WMC (assessed by complex span tasks) and incubation-period mind wandering (assessed as probed reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) predicted post-incubation performance. Retrospective self-reports of Openness (Experiment 2) and mind-wandering and daydreaming propensity (Experiment 3) complemented our thought-probe assessments of TUT. WMC did not correlate with creativity in divergent thinking, whereas only the questionnaire measure of daydreaming, but not probed thought reports, weakly predicted creativity; the fact that in-the-moment TUTs did not correlate divergent creativity is especially problematic for claims that mind-wandering processes contribute to creative cognition. Moreover, the fact that WMC tends to strongly predict analytical problem solving and reasoning, but may not correlate with divergent thinking, provides a useful boundary condition for defining WMC's nomological net. On balance, our data provide no support for either benefits or costs of executive control for at least one component of creativity.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 · Cited by 3,078
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
Self-citationSmallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946 · Cited by 2,067
An automated version of the operation span task
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192720 · Cited by 1,861
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47 · Cited by 1,725 · cited 1×
“…with research showing that WMC variation also correlates with performance on “simpler” attention-control tasks (e.g., Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010), has led some theorists to propose that domain general executive-control mechanisms contribute…”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Science of Mind Wandering: Empirically Navigating the Stream of Consciousness
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331 · Cited by 1,685
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189 · Cited by 1,679
Self-citation
Cited by
Mind-Wandering With and Without Intention
Seli, P., Risko, E. F., Smilek, D., & Schacter, D. L. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.010 · Cited by 451
Ventromedial prefrontal damage reduces mind-wandering and biases its temporal focus
Bertossi, E., & Ciaramelli, E. (2016) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsw099 · Cited by 82
Working memory and the Big Five
Waris, O., Soveri, A., Lukasik, K. M., Lehtonen, M., & Laine, M. (2018) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.027 · Cited by 57
Individual differences in creative cognition.
Dygert, S. K. C., & Jarosz, A. F. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000713 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Smeekens, B. A., & Kane, M. J.
- Venue
- Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 389-415
- ISSN
- 1931-3896 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-390X
- OpenAlex
- W2556314056
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 16.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Working memory capacity, mind wandering, and creative cognition: An individual-differences investigation into the benefits of controlled versus spontaneous thought. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/aca0000046
- The paper
- Smeekens, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2016). Working memory capacity, mind wandering, and creative cognition: An individual-differences investigation into the benefits of controlled versus spontaneous thought. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000046
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.