Suppressing Creativity: The Role Associations have in the Process of Fixation Merel Makker
University of Amsterdam Student ID: 10358048
Thesis Supervisor: Aukje Verhoeven Words: 5402
Abstract
This study investigated whether fixation in creativity tasks is caused by strong associations with the fixated stimuli. In addition, it was examined whether the degree in which people are sensitive for fixation influences the creativity score. The Remote Associates Test (RAT), a word based creativity task, was used to measure creativity and to cause fixation. The Lexical Decision Task (LDT), a measurement for associations trough reaction time, was used to objectively measure the associations between the stimulus and the fixated and non-fixated stimuli. The Figural Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (F-TTCT) a non-verbal creativity task was used to measure creativity separately from the RAT. The results show that the fixation that was tried to be established with the RAT was weak. It was therefore hard to draw further conclusions. The associations with the fixated stimuli were, to the contrary of what was expected, weaker than with the non-fixated stimuli. The degree in which people were sensitive for fixation influenced their F-TTCT score; people who were easier fixated scored lower on the F-TTCT task. The weak associations with the fixated stimuli show that it is still interesting to further examine the associative basis of fixation to see how this process, suppressing creativity, exactly works.
1. Introduction
Nowadays there are high expectations towards being creative. It is a skill highly appreciated and looked for in many fields (Agogué, 2014). Creativity is mainly known as a skill artists, like painters and designers, have which they use to come up with their original ideas (Thomas, 1958; Akin, 1994). But the importance of creativity goes much further than the artistic world. People are constantly struggling with lots of problems like global warming, war and bad economy. For solving complex problems like these, creativity is very important (Ackoff & Vergara, 1981). Even for less complex matters that people face daily, like planning, creativity is profoundly important and necessary (Osburn & Mumford, 2006). The importance of creativity is evident, but what is creativity? In this article the definition of Sternberg and Lubart (1996) is used; “Creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e., original or unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful or meets task constraints)”.
Creativity has an associative basis. Associative elements are for example formed by accidental contiguous appearance of two seemingly non related things in the environment which, when put together, make a great creative idea (Mednick, 1962). The ease at which people are able to make these associations is dependent on their type associative hierarchy. Less creative people have steep slope hierarchy, in this hierarchy active associations are dominant and there are strong associations with certain situations, this makes their behavior and thoughts more directed. Creative people have a flat scope hierarchy in which active associations are less dominant, with this less directive hierarchy it is easier to make less obvious associations (Mednick, 1962). However, the process of creative thinking and making new associations can be impaired by cognitive processes, in particular; fixation.
Fixation has a very limiting effect on creativity. When people are fixated, they are merely able to focus on one aspect and thereby disregard the alternatives (Jansson & Smith, 1991). For example: if people are asked to come up with an idea to stop global warming and
they have been given an example about use of sun energy, they are likely to think about other ways of saving energy like wind power. This is caused by the focus they have on one aspect of the solution (energy) and are consequently blind to alternatives, such as reducing food waste. This leads to restrictions in creative thinking (Crilly, 2015; Woodworth & Schlosberg, 1954). Research shows that almost everybody is affected by this phenomenon (Duncker, 1945; Maier, 1931). It is therefore very important that the process of fixation is closely exanimated in order to find ways to become less affected by fixation.
A way to examine the process of fixation in creativity is with the use of the Remote Associates Tests (RAT) (Mednick & Mednick, 1967). This is a word test based on Mednick’s theory about the associative basis of creativity. The RAT measures creative thinking without the need of any specific knowledge. Every item consists of 3 words, these words can all be combined with the same word. Participants need to find the answer that fits all the three given words. Creativity is necessary to come up with the associations between the three words and thus, the answer. Many studies that look at problem solving skills and creativity make use of the RAT to measure general creativity (Ansburg & Hill, 2003; Lee et al., 2014). In addition to measuring creativity, the RAT is eminently suitable for measuring fixation in this process. Smith and Blankenship (1991) found that when participants are exposed to a wrong answer before they have to come up with their own answer (wrong answers are words that are
applicable to just one or two of the three words) they underperform on the test. It seemed that the underachievement is due to the strong associations with the wrong answer and thus the inability to make other associations.
The idea that fixation is a result of learned associations is widely accepted (Howard, Culley, & Dekoninck, 2008; Adamson, 1952; Duncker, 1945). Yet, current ways to study the mental associations elemental to creativity are bounded. These methods (like word
creativity scores (Chermahini, Hickendorff & Hommel, 2012; Gough, 1976). Fortunately, there is an objective measurement of associations; The Lexical Decision Task (LDT; Neely, 1991). This measure is often used in the goal pursuit literature, which looks into the process of striving and achieving wishes and desires. The LDT measures associations trough reaction time. The participants have to quickly determine whether the combination of letters is an existing word or a non-word. Before the participants see the combination of letters they are primed with another word. Research shows that the faster the reaction time, the stronger the association between the two words is. For example, if the participants are primed with ‘global warming’ and the combination of letters showed after that is ‘sun energy’, they will determine faster that ‘sun energy’ is an existing word because there is an association between these two targets. The fixation was expected to cause for the problem of strong associations with stimuli (Jansson & Smith, 1991), which would mean that people will not have stronger associations when there is no fixation. With the usage of LDT, it will be possible to investigate whether fixated participants have stronger associations with the wrong answer than with the alternative and thus the idea that mental associations cause fixation.
Once before a study in creativity used the LDT in combination with the RAT.
Namely, Zhong, Dijksterhuis and Galinsky (2008) used the LDT to measure the accessibility of the correct RAT answer in an unconscious thought condition, a conscious thought
condition and a mere distraction condition. The goal of their study was to find out whether participants in the unconscious condition were exhibited shorter latency periods and thence greater accessibility of RAT answers than the other conditions. Seeing that Zhong,
Dijksterhuis and Galinsky (2008) used the LDT in combination with the RAT to compare the different conditions and merely examined the accessibility of words, the mental associations in fixation and creativity have yet to be studied with the use of LDT.
impact of fixation on other sorts of creativity, especially non-verbal. The RAT is a verbal creativity test, based solely on words. Two studies, using different vocabulary tests, found a positive correlation between the performance on the RAT and the level of vocabulary
(Rainwater, 1964). This could mean that people with a higher score on the RAT merely have a broader vocabulary and not a higher level of creativity. Thus, it is interesting to examine to what extent creativity and fixation measured with the RAT relates to other ‘sorts’ of
creativity, without the usage of words. The Figural Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (F-TTCT; Torrance, 1966) also measures creativity, but in the visual domain. The participants have to draw pictures, instead of using words. It is interesting to see whether the scores on these two tests are related to each other. In addition, it is interesting to look if the impact that fixation has on participants also influences their scores on the F-TTCT. Storm and colleagues have argued that some people can overcome fixation by inhibiting the associates causing fixation (Storm & Angello, 2010; Storm, Angello, & Bjork, 2011). They argue that these people enlist an inhibitory mechanism to directly reduce the accessibility of misleading associates, rather than wait for fixation to dissipate on its own. The people who are less affected by fixation because of the inhibiting of the associates are able to come up with more creative ideas, than people who are easily fixated. This would also be in line with the theory of creative hierarchy’s (Mednick, 1962). People with a steep slope hierarchy, have dominant associations with active stimuli and are therefore less creative. These people are likely to score lower on the RAT because of the active associations with the fixated stimuli and are also likely to score lower on the F-TTCT because they are less creative. Creative people have a flat scope hierarchy in which active associations are less dominant, they would be less affected by fixation and more creative on the F-TTCT. It is therefore interesting to look in which way sensitivity for fixation is linked to the creativity score on the F-TTCT.
and to measure creativity. After the RAT, the LDT was used to measure the level of association with fixated answers and the correct answers. At last, the non-vocabulary depended creativity test F-TTCT was used to determine the level of creativity in a diverse way and examine the whether the sensitivity for fixation is related the F-TTCT scores. Firstly, it was expected that participants, when fixated, would score lower on the RAT than when they were not fixated. Secondly, it was expected that when the participants were being fixated in the RAT, they would have stronger associations between the stimulus words and the fixation words than between the stimulus words and the answers, thus expecting there were shorter latency periods on the LDT. No differences were expected in latency periods on the LDT when the participants were not fixated because no associations were formed with the words in the RAT task without fixation. Thirdly, the score on the RAT and the F-TTCT were expected to be correlated for participants, meaning that participants scoring high on the RAT were expected to score high on the F-TTCT as well. Lastly, it was expected that participants who were more affected by fixation on the RAT would score lower on the F-TTCT.
2. Method 2.1 Participants
The participants were students from the University of Amsterdam (UvA) in the
Netherlands. The recruitment of these participants was from the end of March until the end of April 2016 via the website of the UvA LAB and via flyers in the UvA buildings. At
registration it was explained that the participants could not be dyslectic and had to be a student at the University of Amsterdam. Participants received course credit for participating. This research consisted of 97 Dutch speaking participants. From the total of 97 participants, 5 were excluded from the analyses. The reason for these exclusions were because the RAT and LDT scores of one of the participants got lost, one of the participants misinterpreted the LDT and three of the participants did not speak Dutch as their native language. The age of the
included 92 participants (76 females and 16 males) ranged from 18 to 28 years, having a mean of 20.75 (SD = 2.17). The Psychology Ethics Committee of the University of Amsterdam approved the procedure of this study.
2.2 Design
This research used a within-subject design. The dependent variable was the number of right answers on the RAT and the reaction time on the RAT and the LDT. The independent variable was was trial (fixation trials compared to non-fixation trials).
2.3 Instruments
2.3.1. Remote Associates Test (RAT)
The remote associates test (RAT; Mednick & Mednick, 1967) was on the one hand used to measure the creativity of the participants and on the other hand to fixate them. The test was based on items from the validated Dutch version of the Remotes Associates Test (Akbari Chermahini et al., 2012), which has a high validity (Cronbach’s α = .85). The Dutch RAT consists of twenty-two items in which participants are given three words, for example ‘surprise/line/birthday’. Thereafter, participants are asked to conceive a word that matches all the given words, in this case ‘party’. The present used ten items that were different from, but based on, the Dutch version of the Remotes Associates Test. The answers could only be placed after the given words like; ‘wheel/electric/high’, with the answer ‘chair’. The reason for this is the fit in the LDT, in which associations are tested by priming the participants with the three given words. The order is which these three words are given would be out of place if we worked with words like ‘party line’, because the participants will see the word ‘line’ before the word ‘party’.
The three given words were called stimulus words, the right word to complement the stimulus words was called the answer. For each item of the RAT the participants got thirty seconds to think of an answer. In half of the cases, the participants were fixated by receiving a relevant, but incorrect, answer in the form of a sentence ‘The answer is not: [wire]’. This word was called the fixation word. The fixation word forms an existing word with one or two of the stimulus words, in this case ‘high wire’ and ‘electric wire’. The fixation would occur because the participants would have established an association between the stimulus words and the fixation word, therefore it will be harder to think of a different answer. In case of non-fixation, the participants were given a similar line without a concrete example ‘Find the right answer.’. There was a total of five fixation-trials and five non-fixation trials. On with trials participants were fixated or not, was counterbalanced across participants. Also the order in which the ten trials were provided was at random. After each RAT trial, the participants continued to do the LDT.
2.3.2. Lexical Decision Task (LDT)
The Lexical decision task (LDT; Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971) was used for
measuring the mental associations by means of reaction time. In this task the participants had to indicate if the word that popped-up on the computer screen was a real word or a non-word. They had to react by typing the letter ‘A’ or the letter ‘L’, in one part of the group the letter ‘A’ stood for ‘existing word’ and the letter ‘L’ for ‘non-existing word’, this was
counterbalanced. The existing words could be a fixation word or an answer, or a neutral word. Before seeing the existing or the non-existing word, the participants were primed with another word. This word was one of the stimulus words or a neutral word (neutral word meaning a word not linked to one of the words from the RAT). The prime word was shown after a ‘+’ occurred in the screen (to draw the attention to this place in the screen) for fifty
milliseconds. Per RAT task there were two blocks of twenty-four associations tested, therefore every association was tested two times. Each block consisted of the three stimulus words from the RAT in combination with the answer, three times the same stimulus words in combination with the fixation word and the rest of the trials were neutral and non-words (randomly picked). The order in which the associations were shown was random. The shorter the reaction time, the stronger the association between the prime word and the target word. The combination of RAT and LDT shows the fixation of the participants. The combination of RAT and LDT shows the fixation of the participants. For example, when the prime word ‘electric’ was followed by the fixation word ‘wire’, fixated participants would have a shorter reaction time than non-fixated participants, because in the RAT task these words were associated to each other.
Before the LDT trials, the participants were shown which words they were going to see on the task. This was done so all the participants got to see the answers to the stimulus words and fixation words and therefore, it could be ruled out that the reaction time on the answer was just the result of the fact half of the participants had already seen the answer (or fixation word).
2.3.3. Figural Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
The Figural Torrance test of creativity (F-TTCT; Torrance, 1984) was used to examine the creativity of the participants in another way than the RAT. The RAT measures creativity in a word task, which scores could depend on the magnitude of the vocabulary of the
participant. This task was therefore a purely figural task. Participants were given two unfinished drawings (two lines) and were instructed to finish these, being as original as possible and using the drawing to tell a complete story. In addition to this, they had to title their drawings. They had three minutes to finish both drawings. The combination of the
results from the RAT and the Figural-TTCT shows the level of creativity on both tests and the degree in which these forms of creativity correspond. The drawings of the participants were scored from 0 = low to 2 = high on three factors based on the scoring system of the actual F-TTCT. Originality: The rarity of the responses (0/1/2); Elaboration: The amount of detail in the responses (0/1/2); and Fluency: The number of interpretable, meaningful and relevant ideas generated in response to the stimulus (0/1/2) (Torrance, 1984). The total score was the sum of the three factors, with a maximum score of 6 and a minimum of 0. Before using the F-TTCT scores, 10% was verified by an independent assessor and checked for consistency. The constancy between the scores from both assessors was very high, r = .954, p < .001.
2.4 Procedure
The students were individually tested in 60 minute sessions. Upon arrival at the LAB of the UvA the students received their course credit and were seated in the cubicles. There they were asked to read the information brochure and sign the informed consent. Thereafter, they were asked to fill in the first general questionnaire on paper. When this was filled in, the computer task was started for them. They first had to read the instructions on the screen, the instructions were explained once more by a researcher to make sure the participants
understood the tasks. They had to make two example tasks; one RAT item and one LDT item. They were able to ask questions if needed. After this they were left alone in the cubicle. Firstly, they had to answer one RAT item, and one trial of the LDT pertaining to the RAT item. This was repeated for all 10 RAT items (5 with fixation word, 5 without). Secondly, when they finished the computer task, they were asked to do the F-TTCT. They were given a pencil and the drawing task, after three minutes they had to put down their pencil. Finally, they were given the last questionnaire. After they were done, they were thanked for their participation and they could go.
3. Results 3.1 Fixation Manipulation with RAT
A paired samples t-test was done with the number of correct items on the fixation trials as one variable and the correct items on the non-fixated trials as the other variable. This showed that the number of correct items on the fixation trial was lower (M = 2.78, SD = .99), compared to the non-fixated trial (M = 2.84, SD = 1.07). This difference, -0.05, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.27], was not significant t(91) = -0.33, p = .740. This finding was in contrast with the hypothesis, because this would mean that the participants were not actually fixated.
The second paired samples t-test showed that the mean reaction time for giving the right answers in milliseconds for participants in the fixation trial was slower in the fixation trials (M = 8207.75, SD = 3722.88), compared to the non-fixation trials (M = 7052.28, SD = 3113.37). This difference, 1155.53, 95% CI [158.37, 2152.69], was significant t(89) = 2.30, p = .024. This means that participants were significantly slower at giving the right answers on the RAT when the fixation word was shown in comparison to the trials when no fixation word was shown. In summery, the fixation of the participants appeared to be weak. Participants were able to give an equal number of right answers in the fixation trials compared to non-fixation trials, but were slower in the non-fixation trials, as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1. Mean reaction time in milliseconds on giving the right answers in the fixation and non-fixation trials. 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 F i xa t i o n N o n - F i xa t i o n RT in M illis ec on ds Trial
3.2 Fixation Associations with LDT
To measure the associations between the stimulus words and the fixation words and the associations between the stimulus words and the answers in the fixation trials and in the non-fixated trials, two paired samples t-tests were done.
The first paired samples t-test was done for the reaction time between stimulus words and fixation words and between stimulus words and the answers, in the fixation trials. As presented in table 1, the mean reaction time between the stimulus words and the fixation words was slower than the mean reaction time between the stimulus words and the answers. This difference, 11.86, 95% CI [0.79, 22.94], was significant t(92) = 2.13, p = .036. This means that, in the fixation trials, the participants had significantly stronger associations between stimulus words and answers compared to the associations between the stimulus words and the fixation words in, this finding was the opposite from the hypothesis.
In the second paired t-test, the non-fixated trials were tested. As presented in table 1, the mean reaction time between the stimulus words and the fixation words was, similar to the fixation trial, slower compared to the mean reaction time between the stimulus words and the answers. However, this difference was not significant, 3.69, 95% CI [-9.70, 17.09], t(91) = 0.55, p = .585. This means that, as hypothesized, there were no differences in associations. Table 1
Mean Reaction Time on the LDT for the Stimulus Words - Answers Combination and the Stimulus Words - Fixation Words Combination and Standard Deviations (Between Parentheticals) in the Fixation and the Non-Fixation Trial
Trial Stimulus-Answer Stimulus-Fixation p-value
Fixation trials 494.77 (116.53) 506.64 (126.46) p = .036 Non-Fixation trials 497.66 (129.82) 501.35 (131.16) p = .585
3.3 Correlation Between Different Types of Creativity
A bivariate correlation was done to measure if the two types of creativity tests
correlated. The bivariate was done for the correlation between the F-TTCT score and the total number of right answers on the RAT and the correlation between the F-TTCT score and the reaction time on the correct RAT items.
The correlation coefficients between the TTCT score and the number of right answers on the RAT showed there was no significant relationship between these two scores, r = -.073, p = .479. The second bivariate showed no correlation between the F-TTCT score and the reaction time it took to give the right answers on the RAT, r = .097, p = .354. There was no significant correlation found between the two creativity test, this finding was not in line with the hypothesis.
3.4 The Impact of Sensitivity for Fixation on Creativity
A bivariate correlation was also done for the correlation between the impact of fixation and the F-TTCT score. First, a new variable was made to measure the impact of fixation. The score on the RAT in the non-fixated trials was subtracted of the score on the RAT in the fixation trial, the new variable was named ‘impact fixation’. There was no significant relationship between the F-TTCT score and the impact of fixation, r = -.028, p = .787.
The extend to which participants were affected by fixation was also measured by subtracting the the time it took to come up with the right answer in the fixation trials from the time it took in the non-fixation trials. This subtraction was correlated with the score on the F-TTCT. There was a significant correlation score on the F-TTCT and the extend to which participants were fixated and therefore slower in the fixation trial, r = .25, p = .02.
4. Discussion
The goal of this research was to asses whether the impairing effect of fixation on creativity is caused by strong associations with the object of fixation (in this case; the wrong answer). Next to the associations of fixation it was explored whether the creativity scores on the RAT correlated with a non-verbal sort of creativity and whether the sensitivity for fixation had impact on the score of the creativity test. The main findings of this study were, first of all, that the fixation had a limited impairing effect on creativity. The fixation did have an
impairing effect on the time in which the participants were able to come up with the creative answer, but the participants were able to think of the same number of creative answers while not fixated. The second finding was that, in the fixation trials, there was an effect for the associations. In the fixation trial participants showed weaker association between the stimulus and the object of fixation than between the stimulus and the answer. In the non-fixation trial there was no effect for the different associations. The third finding was that there is no correlation between the overall scores on the verbal and the non-verbal creativity tests. The last findings showed that there was a weak correlation between the sensitivity for fixation and the score on the F-TTCT, which meant that people who were slower due to fixation also had a lower score on the F-TTCT.
The finding that fixation caused for a longer reaction time to come up with answers on the RAT items, is in line with the effect that was found in the study of Smith and Blankenship (1991). Their study additionally showed that participants in the fixation trial were able to come up with fewer right answers compared to the non-fixated trials. In the present study, this conclusion cannot be made, as no effect of fixation was found on the number of correct answers. A feasible explanation for this is that the manipulation of the fixation failed. In the present study the fixation was tried to be established by giving the participants an example of a solution to the stimulus words that was incorrect (the fixation word). The partly
unsuccessful fixation could have been because the participants were not compelled to couple the fixation words that were given on the screen to the stimulus words and were therefore not fixated. In the study of Smith and Blankenship, the stimulus words and the fixation word were coupled on screen, the participant were therefore forced to read the stimulus words and the fixation words as a combination. This could mean that whether the fixation manipulation is completely successful would depend on the way that the fixation is presented. In future research on fixation, the participants should be compelled to make a combination between the stimulus words and the fixation words. This could be done, like in the study of Smith and Blankenship, by already putting together the stimulus words and the fixation word. This way the participants create relation between these words. Otherwise, participants could ignore the fixation word what, in the present study, probably caused the partly unsuccessful fixation manipulation.
A consequence of the partly unsuccessful fixation is that it interferes with the rest of the findings. It influences the scores on the LDT and makes it hard to draw conclusions. The association effect on the LDT showed that the association between the stimulus words and the fixation words in the fixation trials were weaker than the association between the stimulus words and the answers. This finding was in contrast with the hypothesis, it was assumed that the participants would become focused on the fixation word as the solution for the problem and would therefore have strong associations with the fixation word. A possible explanation for this finding could be that the fixation words that were given were no real ‘solutions’ for the problem, since the fixation words only fitted one of the stimulus words. In goal pursuit literature associations are measured with the LDT, these show that people naturally develop explicit associations between the situations which lead to goal fulfillment and its matching means, this facilitates the adequate performance in goal-directed behavior. In the present study the fixation was not a possible solution and therefore would not lead to ‘goal
fulfillment’. This could mean that people were merely distracted by the fixation words and did not make associations between the stimulus words and the fixation words. In future research the fixation that is given should be more of a solution for the problem. For the RAT, the fixation words should be the correct answer to more than one of the stimulus words, because then the fixation would be a worthy solution and would lead to goal pursuit and therefore cause stronger associations.
This research did not find correlation effect between the score on the RAT and the F-TTCT scores, although these tests are both creativity measurements. A possible explanation for this finding could be the result of the difference in non-verbal and verbal creativity. Mohamed, Maker and Lubart (2012) found that, although creativity has general components, the domain specific components are stronger, meaning that verbal creativity and non-verbal creativity is not the same within individuals. In future research it is interesting to look further into these two types of creativity and in which way creativity has a general domain.
Lastly, in the two findings on correlation between the sensitivity for fixation and the F-TTCT score, an effect was found for the reaction time. The fact that there was no
correlation between the difference in right answers on the fixation and non-fixation trial and the F-TTCT score was caused by the partly unsuccessful fixation manipulation. The effect for the reaction time meant a correlation between participants who were more affected by fixation (the participants that were slower on the RAT answers in the fixation trial), and the
participants who scored lower on the F-TTCT. This finding confirms the theory of Storm et al. (2010), that there are people that are able to inhibit fixation and therefore have the ability to be more creative than people who are not able to inhibit fixation. It also confirms the theory of the creative hierarchies (Mednick, 1962). The less creative participants, with a steep slope hierarchy, had dominant associations with active stimuli and therefore scored lower on the RAT and were also less creative on the F-TTCT. The creative participants, with a flat scope
hierarchy, had less active associations and therefore less affected by fixation and were more creative on the F-TTCT. In future research it is interesting to further examine how the ability to inhibit fixation influences the general creativity.
A shortcoming of this study is that the sample size does not represent the population, since the study consist of only university students. Intelligence and creativity are known to be correlated constructs (Benedek et al., 2014). This could mean that more intelligent people are therefore less sensitive for fixation, this makes it hard to draw extensive conclusions.
Another shortcoming is that we asked the participants afterwards if they knew, during tests, that the study was about fixation. 38,1% Of the participants stated that they knew. This is a relatively high percentage and it could have influenced the behavior of the participants on the RAT and the LDT, because they knew they were being fixated and could deliberately try to ignore the fixation. An explanation for this high percentage could be that most of the
participants were Psychology students whom, in their studies, learned about fixation. In future research the participants should, unlike Psychology students, not be familiar with the subject of fixation. Furthermore, it must be noted that the ten RAT items that were used, were made up and not items of the real RAT. The Dutch version of the Remotes Associates Test (Akbari Chermahini et al., 2012), has a high validity (Cronbach’s α = .85). A result of these self made items could be that the validity of the test dropped and became unreliable. In future research the items should first be tested in a pilot test and the new Cronbach’s alpha should be calculated to check if the test is still a valid measurement.
In conclusion, this study was able to examine the process of fixation in creativity tests, but due to the weak fixation the conclusions are still fairly vague. The fact that it is now possible to research the associations underlying fixations in an objective way has important implications, since fixation suppresses creativity and creativity is one of the most important skills to come up with solutions and deal with al sorts of problems. In future research, the
associations with fixation stimuli should be objectively investigated thoroughly (with usage of the LDT) to gain more knowledge about the process of fixation and with this knowledge make it possible to anticipate on it.
5. References
Ackoff, R. L., & Vergara, E. (1981). Creativity in problem solving and planning: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 7(1), 1-13.
Adamson, R. E. (1952). Functional fixedness as related to problem solving: A repetition of three experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 288–291.
Agogué, M., Poirel, N., Pineau, A., Houdé, O., & Cassotti, M. (2014). The impact of age and training on creativity: a design-theory approach to study fixation effects. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, 33-41.
Akin, Ö. (1994). Creativity in design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 9-21.
Ansburg, P. I., & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1141-1152.
Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Sommer, M., Arendasy, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of
executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence, 46, 73-83.
Chermahini, S. A., Hickendorff, M., & Hommel, B. (2012). Development and validity of a Dutch version of the Remote Associates Task: An item-response theory
approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 177-186.
Crilly, N. (2015). Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert designers. Design Studies, 38, 54-91.
Duncker, K., & Lees, L. S. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i. Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association tests. Journal of
by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160–180.
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3-11.
Lee, C. S., Huggins, A. C., & Therriault, D. J. (2014). A measure of creativity or intelligence? Examining internal and external structure validity evidence of the Remote Associates Test. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,8(4), 446.
Maier, N. R. F, (1931). Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181-194. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological
review, 69(3), 220.
Mednick, S. A. (1968). The Remote Associates Test*. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2(3), 213-214.
Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiner's manual, Remote Associates Test: College and adult forms 1 and 2. Houghton Mifflin.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of experimental psychology, 90(2), 227.
Mohamed, A., Maker, C., & Lubart, T. (2012). Exploring the Domain Specificity of Creativity in Children: The Relationship between a Non-Verbal Creative Production Test and Creative Problem-Solving Activities. Online Submission, 2(2), 84-101. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review
of current findings and theories. Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, 11, 264-336.
Osburn, H. K., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Creativity and planning: Training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 173-190.
Rainwater, J. M. (1965). Effects of set on problem solving in subjects of varying levels of assessed creativity (Doctoral dissertation).
Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. The American Journal of Psychology, 104, 61-87.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677.
Storm, B. C., & Angello, G. (2010). Overcoming fixation: Creative problem solving and retrieval- induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 21, 1263 1265.
Storm, B. C., Angello, G., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Thinking can cause forgetting: Memory dynamics in creative problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1287 1293.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms Technical Manual, Research Edition personnel press. Princeton, NJ.
Tomas, V. (1965). Creativity in the Arts.
Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology. Oxford and IBH Publishing.
Zhong, C. B., Dijksterhuis, A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). The merits of unconscious thought in creativity. Psychological Science, 19(9), 912-918.
