Cited by 47Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceCognitive Abilities and TestingDesign Education and Practice

Individual differences in creative cognition.

Dygert, Sarah K. C., Jarosz, Andrew F.·2020·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Creativity is becoming an increasingly desirable characteristic across a number of domains, but the processes underlying various creative abilities remain ambiguous. The most frequently used assessments of creativity (i.e., divergent thinking tasks; creative problem-solving tasks) differ in surface features and are also rarely examined together. These inconsistencies, in addition to mixed findings in the literature, have caused considerable debate among creativity researchers concerning the particular roles of independent or dual processes that lead to success on different creativity tests. The present study expounded upon these mixed findings using a factor analytic method. The results indicated that individual differences in working memory and fluency ability impact performance on divergent thinking and creative problem-solving tasks, but to differing degrees. These results are discussed as supporting a dual-process view of creative thinking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000713

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • To control for confounding effects of fluency and elaboration, the chatbots were asked to produce specific amounts of responses and limit word count, which purposely impaired the potential of the AI.

    “Additionally, to control for the confounding effects of fluency and elaboration29, we had to ask the chatbots to produce specific amounts of responses and limit the word count in their responses, even though they are capable of generating several ideas within seconds. This purposely impaired the potential of the AI.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 108 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dygert, S. K. C., & Jarosz, A. F.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2020-07
Volume
149
Issue
7
Pages
1249-1274
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2995811386
Cited by
47
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
FWCI
4.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
Keywords
individual differences in creativity, creative cognition, divergent thinking, creative problem solving, working memory, fluency, dual-process models, creativity assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Creativity, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Problem Solving

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