See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/216843549

Patterning and Nonpatterning in Creative Cognition: Insights From

Performance in a Random Number Generation Task

Article in Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · October 2011

DOI: 10.1037/a0025452

CITATIONS READS
34 642

4 authors, including:

Konrad Bresin
University of Louisville
80 PUBLICATIONS 2,446 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Konrad Bresin on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. ●●, No. ●, 000 – 000 1931-3896/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025452

Patterning and Nonpatterning in Creative Cognition: Insights From

Performance in a Random Number Generation Task

Darya L. Zabelina Michael D. Robinson, James R. Council, and

Northwestern University Konrad Bresin
North Dakota State University

Most of the major theories of creative cognition pre-date the cognitive revolution in psychology. There
is, thus, great potential in using modern cognitive assessments to understand the differential creativity of
individuals. In this study, creativity was assessed in terms of originality, fluency, flexibility, and past
creative achievements. The same individuals (N ⫽ 102) completed a random number generation (RNG)
task in two conditions: one (a baseline condition) in which there were no instructions to produce a random
sequence and a second (an ability condition) in which such instructions were administered. Two
components of departures from randomness—Prepotent Associates (shorter-term violations of random
responding, such as using consecutive numbers more often) and Repetition of Responses (longer-term
violations of random responding by repeating the same number over intervening trials)—were quantified.
Prepotent Associates in the ability condition negatively predicted fluency and flexibility. On the other
hand, Repetition of Responses in the baseline condition positively predicted originality and self-reported
creative achievements. Results are discussed in terms of the unique processing substrates likely to
underlie different creativity outcomes, as well as the utility of modeling such processes in terms of
temporal trends in thought patterning, as can be assessed in RNG tasks.

AQ: 1 Keywords: creativity, originality, fluency, achievement, cognition, individual differences

Whether conceptualized in terms of potential, personality, or
product, some individuals are more creative than others. As with
intelligence (Jensen, 1998), the understanding of creativity should
benefit from individual difference approaches that are process-
oriented in nature (Davis, 1997; Spearman, 1931; Vartanian,
2009). Specifically, to the extent that process-oriented assessments
prove their worth in predicting individual differences in divergent
thinking or creative achievements, important knowledge is gained
in understanding creativity itself. The present investigation pur-
sued the idea that creativity can, in part, be conceptualized in terms
of the extent to which the mind repeats itself or not in a very basic
cognitive task involving random number generation (Baddeley,
1966, 1986). In the introduction, we review these previously
separate literatures, seek rapprochement, and then present specific
hypotheses.
Process-Oriented Theories of Creativity
What sorts of mental processes support creativity? Theories of
creativity certainly differ in their answer to this question, some-
Darya L. Zabelina, Department of Psychology, Northwestern Univer-
AQ: 18 sity; Michael D. Robinson, James R. Council, and Konrad Bresin, ●●●,
North Dakota State University.
Darya L. Zabelina acknowledges support from a National Science
AQ: 19 Federation Graduate Research Fellowship.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Darya L.
Zabelina, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029
Sheridan Road–102 Swift Hall, Evanston, Illinois 60298. E-mail:
darya.zabelina@u.northwestern.edu
1
times seemingly in opposition to each other. For example, distract-
ibility from irrelevant stimuli has been seen as both harmful and
beneficial to creative thinking (White & Shah, 2006). Focused
cognitive effort is said to lead to creative breakthroughs (Groborz
& Neçka, 2003; Simonton, 1999), but so is incubation, defined as
a period of time in which such focused efforts are not made
(Dodds, Ward, & Smith, in press). Creativity may require a playful
mindset (Brown & Vaughan, 2009; Getzels & Jackson, 1962;
Panksepp, 2007), but task-focused thinking may be valuable as
well (Groborz & Neçka, 2003). Creativity may be facilitated by
automatic forms of cognition (Eysenck, 1995; Kasof, 1997), but
those incapable of cognitive control due to brain damage are
distinctly noncreative in their solutions to everyday life problems
(Miller & Cohen, 2001; Spatt & Goldenberg, 1993). In short, AQ: 2
theories of creative cognition are heterogeneous, sometimes to the
point of seeming contradictory.
One way of reconciling such diverse perspectives on creative
cognition is to suggest that creative individuals can be both more
focused and less focused (Vartanian, 2009) or both more automatic
and more controlled (Zabelina & Robinson, 2010) in their pro-
cessing tendencies, depending on the task context. Another way of
reconciling such diverse perspectives is to suggest that different
processes are necessary for different phases of the creative en-
deavor. For example, creative individuals may brainstorm when
solutions are not forthcoming or when more possible solutions to
a problem seem desirable, but they may then engage in consider-
able convergent thinking to instantiate a preferred solution (Varta-
nian, 2009).
There is yet another way of reconciling diverse perspectives on
creative cognition, one that guided the present research efforts.
Creativity, it is now well recognized, is not a monolithic entity.
 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356
2 ZABELINA, ROBINSON, COUNCIL, AND BRESIN
Creative potential, which we assess in terms of divergent thinking,
encompasses originality, fluency, and flexibility (Goff & Torrance,
2002). Originality is defined in terms of nonnormative responses
that are task-appropriate. Fluency is defined in terms of the number
of pertinent solutions provided within a given time period. Flexi-
bility is defined as providing different types of responses to the
same stimulus task (Goff & Torrance, 2002). Originality and
fluency, in particular, tend not to be strongly correlated, if at all
(Runco, 2004). This simple fact means that different cognitive
processing tendencies are likely to underlie these different criteria
of creative potential. Moreover, creative potential—whether de-
fined in terms of originality, fluency, or flexibility—may or may
not translate into creative achievements, defined in terms of
longer-term recognition for one’s efforts in realms such as creative
writing, music, science, and the visual arts (Kaufman & Beghetto,
2009; Runco, 2004).
We ambitiously sought to understand the separable processing
substrates of originality, fluency, flexibility, and creative achieve-
ment. Our intuition was that individual differences in temporal
patterning in a very basic cognitive task would provide novel
insights to the creativity literature and would do so in nuanced
manners. We assessed such temporal patterns in terms of depar-
tures from random responding in a random number generation
(RNG) task. We will review this basic cognitive literature before
providing specific predictions.
The Potential Utility of RNG Assessments
Creative cognition is often conceptualized in terms of associa-
tive thought processes—that is, predictable sequences in which
one thought triggers another related thought (Mednick, 1962;
Spearman, 1931). RNG tasks were created to assess such tenden-
cies toward thought patterning versus its absence (Baddeley,
1966). Such tasks ask individuals to type in a sequence of num-
bers, typically that vary from 1 to 9. Of interest is the extent to
which such number sequences display predictable temporal pat-
terning or not. The majority of this work has asked individuals to
generate as random a number sequence as possible and has treated
deviations from random responding as a dependent measure. When
individuals are asked to produce such sequences especially
quickly, or when a dual-task is concurrently administered, number
sequences become more patterned (Baddeley, 1986).
There is further evidence for the validity of RNG tasks. Neuro-
imaging studies have shown that the frontal cortex is recruited in
performing RNG tasks (Artiges et al., 2000; Itagaki, Niewa, Itoh,
& Momose, 1995). Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies have
shown that the temporary deactivation of the dorsolateral prefron-
tal cortex results in poorer (i.e., less random) performance in RNG
tasks (Jahanshahi & Dirnberger, 1999; Jahanshahi et al., 1998).
Sleep deprivation results in poorer randomization performance, at
least in relation to certain indices (Gottselig et al., 2006; Heuer,
Kohlisch, & Klein, 2005). From an individual differences perspec-
tive, studies have shown that older adults (Heuer, Janczyk, &
Kunde, 2010) and patients with frontal lobe lesions (Spatt &
Goldenberg, 1993) exhibit difficulties in randomizing their re-
sponses.
Despite considerable evidence for the idea that deviations from
random responding, with instructions to do so, track frontal lobe
functioning (Brugger, Monsch, Salmon, & Butters, 1996), such
violations in randomness can sometimes be dissociated. For ex-
ample, Heuer et al. (2005) found that sleep deprivation disrupted
RNG performance in relation to some indices but not others, and
Heuer et al. (2010) reported similar conclusions when comparing
the RNG performance of younger versus older adults. Importantly,
we now have good evidence that different RNG indices seem to
reflect different factors. Friedman and Miyake (2004) conducted a
factor analysis with a large sample size and found that three
distinct and largely independent factors characterized RNG per-
formance: Prepotent Associates, Repetition of Responses, and
Inequality of Response Usage.
The Prepotent Associates factor can be viewed in terms of
difficulties overcoming shorter-term pattern sequences—for exam-
ple, response tendencies favoring a “123” consecutive sequence.
Overcoming such shorter-term pattern sequences is a classic
achievement of the prefrontal cortex (Miller & Cohen, 2001) and
has been implicated as a processing substrate of fluent output
(Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, & Howerter, 2000). Ac-
cordingly, individuals displaying greater tendencies toward Prepo-
tent Associates were hypothesized to be less fluent and flexible in
their creative cognition in the present investigation (see below).
By contrast, the Repetition of Responses factor (Friedman &
Miyake, 2004) assesses longer-term trends toward patterned se-
quences. One index (Towse & Neil, 1988), for example, assesses
whether there is any covariation between the numbers typed on
trial n and trial n ⫹ 6. Baddeley, Emslie, Kolodny, and Duncan
(1998) suggest that repetition avoidance (the conceptual opposite
of repetition of responses) does not require limited capacity exec-
utive resources (also see Friedman & Miyake, 2004). Thus, and
consistent with the consensus that different RNG factors tap dif-
ferent processes (Heuer et al., 2005; Towse & Neil, 1998), the
correlates of the Repetition of Responses factor should be different
and less executive in nature. In fact, we view such longer-term
trends in responding in terms of revisiting earlier thought patterns
at a later time, tendencies that might serve creative achievements
(see below).
Results involving an Inequality of Responses factor (i.e., using
some numbers more than others when all numbers should be used
equally often) are not reported in the present study for three
reasons. First, this factor is least relevant to temporal patterning,
the theoretical focus of the investigation. Second, a manipulation
of instructions to generate as random a number sequence as pos-
sible (see below) did not alter indices of this type. Third, such
factor scores did not in fact predict individual differences in
divergent thinking abilities or in self-reported creative achieve-
ments in preliminary analyses. For such reasons, we focused our
predictions on the Prepotent Associates and Repetition of Re-
sponses factors. These factors are not highly correlated (Friedman
& Miyake, 2004) and should, therefore, predict different
creativity-related outcomes.
Finally, a novel feature of our investigation was the use of two
RNG task conditions. In a baseline condition, participants were
instructed to type in numbers from 1 to 9 in any manner they
wished. Factor scores obtained from this condition should be most
predictive of creativity measures of a spontaneous, natural type. In
an ability condition, we then administered typical instructions,
asking participants to type in numbers in as random a manner as
possible. Factor scores obtained from this latter condition should
be most predictive of creativity measures dependent on executive
 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356
RANDOM NUMBER GENERATION
functioning. Originality, fluency, and flexibility were assessed by
a measure of divergent thinking (Goff & Torrance, 2002), and
creative achievements were self-reported in terms of objective
benchmarks (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005).
Purpose and Hypotheses
Our purpose was to understand the processes contributing to
individual differences in divergent thinking and creative achieve-
ments. We considered each creativity-related outcome in turn.
Like others (e.g., Runco, 2004), we conceptualized originality in
terms of spontaneous tendencies that differ between individuals.
Some individuals produce original ideas quite irrespective of pres-
sures to do so (Collins & Amabile, 1999). On the basis of such
considerations, we hypothesized that RNG scores from the base-
line condition would be more informative in predicting originality.
On the other hand, we conceptualized fluency and flexibility
more as an ability of a cognitive control or executive type (Miyake
et al., 2000). Generating more solutions to a problem requires
individuals to overcome prepotent or relatively obvious solutions,
a central capacity of the frontal lobes (Miller & Cohen, 2001). In
other literatures, fluency deficits have been observed among indi-
viduals hypothesized to have less effective frontal lobe function-
ing, including those who are schizophrenic or alcoholics (Rosen-
berg, Weber, Crocq, Duval, & Macher, 1990), or suffering from
frontal lobe lesions (Miller & Cohen, 2001). On the basis of such
considerations, we hypothesized that RNG scores from the ability
condition would be more informative in predicting individual
differences in fluency and flexibility. Moreover, given the estab-
lished link between Prepotent Associates in RNG tasks and exec-
utive functioning (Friedman & Miyake, 2004), we hypothesized an
inverse relation between Prepotent Associates in the ability con-
dition on the one hand and fluency and flexibility on the other
hand.
Creative achievements are facilitated by relatively long-term
efforts (Simonton, 1999). For example, hundreds of hours would
presumably be necessary to stage a play, compose a sonata, fash-
ion a piece of jewelry, or be successful in publishing a piece of
creative writing. Accordingly, any such achievement would seem
to require a mind that naturally works and reworks material over
time. If so, individuals who repeat their responses across time,
particularly over longer temporal lags, would seem to be more
likely to have done something important in the creative achieve-
ment realm. On the basis of such considerations, we hypothesized
that baseline tendencies toward response repetition would posi-
tively predict creative achievements.
In summary, the Prepotent Associates factor should be more
predictive of fluency and flexibility, whereas the Repetition of
Responses factor should be more predictive of creative achieve-
ments (and, potentially, originality). Further, ability (relative to
baseline) condition estimates of Prepotent Associates should be
more predictive of fluency and flexibility. By contrast, baseline
(relative to ability) condition estimates of Repetition of Responses
should be more predictive of originality and a past history of
creative achievements. Finally, we hypothesized that baseline ten-
dencies toward response repetition would predict self-reported
creative achievements even when controlling for divergent think-
ing abilities.
3
Method
Participants and Procedures
Participants were 102 (61 female) student volunteers from North
Dakota State University seeking extra credit for their psychology
classes. Eighty percent were White/Caucasian in ethnicity, 7%
were Asian or Pacific Islander, 5% were African American, and
2% were Hispanic. The average age of the participants was 19.32
(SD ⫽ 2.19). Primarily, the sample consisted of college freshman
or sophomores enrolled in an introduction to psychology course.
They signed up over the Internet for a “drawing study.” No
reference to creativity was mentioned.
Groups of six or less reported to our laboratory. Informed
consent was obtained in a large common room. Participants were
then placed within one of six private cubicle rooms, each equipped
with its own personal computer and table. A measure of divergent
thinking abilities (see below) was administered first. Creative
achievements were then assessed by questionnaire. Finally, partic-
ipants completed the number generation task on a computer. The
activities were described as independent, and the order of measures
was held constant in order to facilitate the individual difference
comparisons of central interest to the study.
Number Generation Task
Procedures for the number generation task were similar to
Friedman and Miyake (2004). Participants were to enter num-
bers from 1–9. They were to enter one number per second in
response to a brief tone presented over headphones. The phrase
“too slow” was presented on trials in which a response was not
made within the 1-s period. Such procedures ensured a constant
assessment context across individuals—that is, they could not
speed up or slow down their rate of responding, which would
confound the task from an individual differences perspective.
Additionally, the task was a purely cognitive one in which
creativity was not the focus of interest.
A baseline condition was administered first. Individuals were
told to enter numbers from 1–9 in any manner they wished, but it
was also emphasized that their responses should vary across trials
to some extent. Regardless, no instructions for this condition
emphasized the importance of random responding. This condition
ended when 100 numbers had been typed. We conceptualized
responses in this condition in terms of spontaneous, trait-like
tendencies.
Performance in a second block was then assessed. Participants
were told that their numeric responses should be as random as
possible. Instructions specifically stated that random responding
can be viewed in terms of picking a number out of a hat, returning
it, shaking the hat’s contents, then picking another number out of
the hat, and so forth (Towse & Neil, 1998). It was pointed out that
such procedures would sometimes, although not typically, result in
the same number occurring twice in a row (e.g., “11”) or involve
adjacent (e.g., “12” or “21”) number sequences across consecutive
trials.
Quantification of Number Generation Performance
The RGCalc program (Towse & Neil, 1998) quantifies depar-
tures from randomness in terms of 19 different indices, 11 of
 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356

4 ZABELINA, ROBINSON, COUNCIL, AND BRESIN

which are relevant to the factors of interest here. Of note, this lags, again separately by person and condition. The resulting 4 AQ: 5
program operates on Windows machines and can be downloaded factor scores (baseline Prepotent Associates, ability Prepotent As-
from Towse’s website. The Prepotent Associates factor captured sociates, baseline Repetition of Responses, and ability Repetition
tendencies toward stereotyped response sequences, typically in- of Responses) were positively skewed. We, therefore, log-
volving adjacent numbers (e.g., “12”, “321”). The Repetition of transformed them for predictive purposes and also replaced log-
Responses factor reflected a tendency toward patterned responding transformed factor scores 2.5 SDs below or above the mean with
across nonadjacent lags (e.g., typing “1” on trials n and n ⫹ 6). We such outlier values. Similar procedures are used in transforming
factor-analyzed our RNG data and found results highly compara- reaction time distributions, which are invariably positively skewed
ble to those reported by Friedman and Miyake (2004). (Robinson, 2007). In all cases, higher factor scores indicate greater
AQ: 3 The Prepotent Associates factor was defined in terms of turning patterning in responding.
point index (TPI; too few shifts from ascending to descending We conceptualized factor scores in terms of individual differ-
sequences or vice versa— e.g., “1345785”), total adjacency (A; too ence predictors. Ideally, such factor scores should be reliable. To
many adjacent pairs of a stereotyped sequence type— e.g., investigate this question, we treated unweighted standardized in-
“12657832”), Runs (variability in phase length: sequences of as- dices as “items” and then computed internal reliability estimates.
cending or descending numbers that are too long— e.g., All factor scores exhibited good levels of reliability for 5– 6 item
“3456789”), RNG1 (Evan’s number generation score: too many scales. Cronbach alphas were .71, .72, .79, and .73 for baseline AQ: 6
sequence pairs that are predictable— e.g., “14. . .14. . .14. . .”), and Prepotent Associates, ability Prepotent Associates, baseline Rep-
RNG2 (analysis of interleaved diagrams: too many pairs of se- etition of Responses, and ability Repetition of Responses, respec-
quence pairs that are predictable— e.g., “3476. . .3476. . .”). The tively. Accordingly, we can recommend scoring procedures of the
Repetition of Responses factor was defined in terms of repeating present type in the assessment of reliable individual difference
the same number over a gap of some nonscored numbers in tendencies.
between (e.g., ““4. . .4. . .4. . .”), termed phi scores. Phi coeffi-
cients varied from 2 to 7, with the number reflecting the gap in Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA)
between (e.g., Phi2 ⫽ repetition of the same number with a single
nonscored number in between). Factor loadings, from largest to Divergent thinking abilities are thought to be one important
smallest, were based on Phi4, Phi3, Phi2, Phi5, Phi6, and Phi7 predictor of creative achievement, though there are other predic-
indices, respectively. tors as well (e.g., IQ, education). We focused on divergent thinking
Because the units for the indices were quite different (see abilities in the present investigation. A shortened form of the
AQ:4, T1 Table 1), we standardized (i.e., z-scored) them separately for Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974),
baseline and ability conditions. To quantify Prepotent Associates, termed the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA; Goff &
we then multiplied each person’s relevant index scores (for TPI, A, Torrance, 2002), was used to assess creative cognition (sometimes
Runs, RNG, and RNG2) by the standardized factor loadings for termed creative potential). The TTCT has excellent psychometric
these indices reported in a table by Friedman and Miyake (2004). properties (Kim, 2008; Millar, 2002), and predictive validity of the
Then, for each person and condition, we averaged across the five TTCT has been established across a broad age range, including in
(index by standardized loadings) scores. Parallel procedures— longitudinal studies (Davis, 1997). Although there is less docu-
standardization, multiplying Phi indices by Friedman and Mi- mentation concerning the ATTA, it correlates highly with the TTCT
yake’s (2004) reported factor loadings, then averaging across and displays good evidence for criterion validity, as well (Goff &
indices—were used to quantify Repetition of Responses across Torrance, 2002).
The ATTA consists of three activities, one involving verbal
responses and two involving figural responses (e.g., using incom-
Table 1 plete figures to make pictures). Responses are scored for fluency
Condition Effects on RNG Indices (i.e., a count of the number of pertinent responses), flexibility (i.e.,
the number of different types of answers that are given to the same
Factor Baseline Ability F
stimulus), and originality (i.e., the number of responses that are
Prepotent Associates Factor unique and original) and then summed across the three activities.
TPI 72.91 80.76 7.91ⴱ All three characteristics of creative cognition were scored by the
A 35.64 27.49 20.09ⴱ first author according to the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults
Runs 2.07 1.21 25.38ⴱ
RNG .42 .39 3.08
Manual (Goff & Torrance, 2002). Scoring was blind with respect
RNG2 .40 ⫺1.17 4.48ⴱ to the other individual difference variables collected in the study.
Repetition of Responses Factor Additionally, a set of protocols was mailed to the publisher for
Phi4 ⫺2.61 ⫺3.02 3.47 independent scoring. The first author’s scores correlated highly,
Phi3 ⫺.83 ⫺2.48 18.16ⴱ rs ⬎ .9, with those returned by the test publisher.
Phi2 ⫺.70 ⫺1.17 1.00
Phi5 ⫺2.09 ⫺2.58 5.17ⴱ
Phi6 ⫺2.18 ⫺2.44 1.89 The Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ)
Phi7 ⫺1.96 ⫺1.86 .33
Divergent thinking abilities sometimes predict creative achieve-
Note. TPI ⫽ turning point index; A ⫽ total adjacency; Runs ⫽ variability
in phase length; RNG1 ⫽ Evan’s number generation score; RNG2 ⫽
ments, but sometimes they do not (Ivcevic, 2009). Thus, it was
analysis of interleaved diagrams. deemed important to assess individual differences in creative
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. achievements, as well, which we did in terms of the Creative
 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356
RANDOM NUMBER GENERATION
Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ; Carson et al., 2005). Individ-
uals were asked to characterize their prior creative achievements in
10 artistic realms (architecture design, creative writing, culinary
arts, dance, humor, inventions, music, scientific inquiry, theater
AQ: 7 and film, and visual arts). For each domain, participants could
indicate that they had not done anything of substance in the
relevant domain (e.g., “I have no training or recognized talent in
this area,” scored 0) or had some training (e.g., “I have taken
lessons in this area,” scored 1), or they could choose from 6 other
levels of ascending accomplishment (e.g., “My choreography has
been recognized by a national publication,” scored 7). To score
creative achievements in a general manner, scores were averaged
across the 10 different domains.
Several points can be made in favor of assessing creative
achievements in the manner that we did. The CAQ is not a typical
self-report scale in which individuals self-describe their personal-
ity attributes in vague terms (Schwarz, 1999). Quite the contrary,
the CAQ asks individuals to report on actual past achievements
(e.g., having been paid for a poem or a short story) that should not
be particularly sensitive to distortions. Indeed, Carson et al. (2005)
found no relation between a social desirability scale, designed to
detect such distortions, and CAQ scores. Carson et al. (2005) also
reported considerable reliability and validity evidence for this
scale. For example, CAQ scores predicted artist ratings of the
creativity of collages, Study 2: r ⫽ .59, and objective measures of
divergent thinking, Study 3: r ⫽ .47. Silvia, Kaufman, and Pretz
(2009) found that the CAQ, but not a more vague measure of
self-reported creative achievement, was capable of distinguishing
creative from noncreative individuals in taxonomic terms. Finally,
we suggest that there is no alternative measure of creative achieve-
ment that can assess such achievement in as comprehensive a
manner as the CAQ. For example, it would be practically impos-
sible to assess the lifetime creative achievements measured by the
CAQ on the basis of objective records.
Results
Initial Results From the Number Generation Task
Recall that there were two conditions in the number generation
task. We hypothesized that the condition manipulation (baseline
vs. ability) would affect performance, such that greater patterning
of responding would be observed in the baseline condition. In
evaluating whether this was the case, we could not use factor
scores because we had standardized indices by condition prior to
computing factor scores for each individual; that is, any compar-
ison of factor scores across conditions would necessarily result in
an F value of 0. It was, therefore, necessary to perform such
analyses in terms of individual indices rather than factor scores. An
initial MANOVA confirmed a significant Condition by Index
interaction, F(10, 88) ⫽ 5.41, p ⬍ .001. We, therefore, conducted
11 follow-up, one-way ANOVAs. Because the initial MANOVA
AQ: 8
was significant and because our main interest was in describing
this set of analyses, we used a regular alpha level rather than an
adjusted one. The results of these analyses are reported in Table 1.
As shown, performance was more random in the ability condition,
relative to the baseline condition, in terms of 6 of 11 of the indices.
Following Towse and Neil (1998) and Friedman and Miyake
(2004), we expected factor scores pertaining to Prepotent Associ-
5
ates and Repetition of Responses to be largely independent. This
was the case, as individual differences in Prepotent Associates did
not significantly predict individual differences in repetition of
responses in either the baseline condition, r ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⬎ .28, or
the ability condition, r ⫽ ⫺.08, p ⬎ .43. Such tendencies must,
therefore, be distinguished from an individual differences perspec-
tive. Given the reliability of tendencies to give prepotent associates AQ: 9
and to repeat responses across variable lags, we hypothesized
significant correlations across conditions. This proved to be the
case. Individuals exhibiting more Prepotent Associates in the base-
line condition also exhibited more Prepotent Associates in the
ability condition, r ⫽ .37, p ⬍ .01, and similar results occurred for
the Repetition of Responses factor, r ⫽ .27, p ⬍ .01.
Initial Results Involving the Creativity Measures
Means and standard deviations for ATTA fluency, M ⫽ 10.64,
SD ⫽ 3.79, flexibility, M ⫽ 3.08, SD ⫽ 1.73, and originality, M ⫽
5.60, SD ⫽ 3.54, were similar to those of the test developers (Goff
& Torrance, 2002). The same was true for scores from the CAQ
measure, (M ⫽ 11.00, SD ⫽ 8.18, of creative achievement (Carson AQ: 10
et al., 2005). Overall, then, our participant sample can be charac-
terized as average in divergent thinking abilities and achievement.
Correlations among the creativity measures are reported in
Table 2. Runco (2004) notes that originality and fluency seem to T2
reflect different processes, as measures of originality and fluency
are often uncorrelated. This was the case in our investigation, as
well (see Table 2). Accordingly, originality and fluency should
have different predictors, a point substantiated below. Although
originality is often thought to fuel creative achievements, Ivcevic
(2009) contended that creative achievement is influenced by many
other factors aside from original thinking. Such considerations
suggest that originality may often not predict creative achieve-
ments. As shown in Table 2, there was a positive but nonsignifi-
cant relation between originality and creative achievements in our
investigation. Nonetheless, given the positive sign of this relation-
ship, some variables may predict both outcomes, a point substan-
tiated below.
Relations Between RNG Factors and the Creativity
Measures
The number generation task was hypothesized to provide novel
insights into individual differences in creative cognition and be-
havior. To support this potential point, each of the four RNG factor
scores were correlated with each of the four creativity measures.
Such correlations are reported in Table 3. To interpret the corre- T3
Table 2
Correlations Among the Creativity Measures
●●● Fluency Flexibility Originality
CAQ .33ⴱ .17 .15
Fluency — .67ⴱ .09
Flexibility — ⫺.13
Note. CAQ ⫽ Creative Achievement Questionnaire.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356

6 ZABELINA, ROBINSON, COUNCIL, AND BRESIN

Table 3 variables in predicting originality and creative achievements. The

Correlations Between RNG Factor Scores and Creativity results of these analyses are reported in Table 4. As shown, T4
Outcomes Prepotent Associates in the ability condition predicted lesser flu-
ency with baseline Prepotent Associates scores controlled, and
BRep BPre ARep APre baseline tendencies toward Response Repetition continued to pre-
Fluency .13 ⫺.07 ⫺.03 ⫺.33ⴱ dict originality and creative achievements when controlling for
Flexibility .07 ⫺.13 ⫺.02 ⫺.21ⴱ ability-related Repetition of Responses factor scores.
Originality .23ⴱ .01 .08 .13 Creative achievements can be viewed as the ultimate outcome to
CAQ .32ⴱ ⫺.07 .13 ⫺.16 be explained. In a final hierarchical multiple regression, we sought
to show that baseline Repetition of Response tendencies possess
Note. RNG ⫽ random number generation; BRep ⫽ baseline condition
tendencies toward response repetition; BPre ⫽ baseline condition tenden- significant value in predicting such achievements even after con-
cies toward prepotent associates; ARep ⫽ ability condition tendencies trolling for divergent thinking abilities. With CAQ scores as the
toward response repetition; APre ⫽ ability condition tendencies toward dependent measure, we first entered estimates of divergent think-
prepotent associates; CAQ ⫽ Creative Achievement Questionnaire. ing abilities (originality, fluency, and flexibility) as a set. This set
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
of predictors explained a significant proportion of variance in
CAQ scores, F(2, 95) ⫽ 6.95, p ⬍ .01, R2 ⫽ .12. As in Table 3,
lations, it is important to note that higher factor scores from the fluency was a significant predictor, t ⫽ 2.44, p ⬍ .05, ␤ ⫽ .33,
number generation task indicate greater patterning in responding. whereas originality and flexibility were not, ps ⬎ .20. In a second
We hypothesized that Prepotent Associates, given its link to step, we then added the baseline Repetition of Responses factor.
executive functioning (Friedman & Miyake, 2004), would be more Adding this factor resulted in a significant increase in variance
consequential in predicting fluency and flexibility. Indeed (and explained, R2 change ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .05. Fluency remained a signif-
ignoring condition for the moment), fluency and flexibility were icant predictor, t ⫽ 2.40, p ⬍ .05, ␤ ⫽ .31. In addition, the baseline
predicted by the Prepotent Associates factor but not by the Rep- Repetition of Responses factor was a significant predictor, t ⫽
etition of Responses factor (see Table 3). Further, the significant 2.79, p ⬍ .05, ␤ ⫽ .27. Thus, our results highlight a predictor of
correlations were negative, such that greater tendencies toward creative achievements—namely, repeating responses over inter-
Prepotent Associates appeared to stymie fluency and flexibility. vening lags—that is not only novel, but also possesses discrimi-
By contrast, original thinking may benefit from more remote nant validity.
associations (Martindale, 1995), and thought repetition over longer
periods of time might be conducive to creative achievements Discussion
(Simonton, 1999). On the basis of such considerations, and ignor-
ing condition for the moment, we hypothesized that the Repetition Several theories of creativity view it in terms of associative
of Responses factor would be predictive of originality and self- networks—that is, the extent to which one thought triggers another
reported creative achievements. This proved to be the case (see one and so on (Mednick, 1962). In addition, associations are key
Table 3). What is striking in relation to these correlations is that to the manner in which brainstorming (Osborn, 1957), incubation
they were positive, such that there appears to be some benefit to (Dodds et al., in press; Wallas, 1926), and unconscious problem
greater response patterning in relation to these outcomes. solving (Dijksterhuis, Bos, Nordgren, & van Baaren, 2006) likely
A third dissociation was obtained as well. We conceptualized work. We sought to model individual differences in associative AQ: 11

fluency and flexibility in ability-related terms, and this idea was

supported by the fact that individual differences in the Prepotent
Associates factor only predicted fluency and flexibility in a con- Table 4
dition in which individuals were instructed to be as random in their Predicting Creativity Outcomes While Controlling for
responding as possible. On the other hand, we conceptualized Overlapping Variance Across Conditions
originality and creative achievement in terms of less effortful,
more naturalistic tendencies. Consistent with this point, only base- Outcome t p ␤
line tendencies toward Response Repetition predicted individual
differences in originality and self-reported creative achievements. Fluency
BPre 0.65 .51 .07
APre ⫺3.49 ⬍.00 ⫺.36
Multiple Regression Analyses Flexibility
BPre ⫺0.50 .62 ⫺.05
Baseline tendencies toward Response Repetition predicted orig- APre ⫺1.82 .07 ⫺.20
inality and creative achievement, whereas ability tendencies to- Originality
ward Prepotent Associates predicted fluency and flexibility. How- BRep 2.14 .03 .22
ARep 0.26 .80 .03
ever, such distinct associations by condition are potentially Creative Achievements
compromised by the fact that factor scores were moderately cor- BRep 3.04 ⬍.00 .31
related across conditions. It was, therefore, deemed useful to ARep 0.44 .66 .04
perform four multiple regressions. Baseline and ability Prepotent
Note. BRep ⫽ baseline condition tendencies toward response repetition;
Associates factor scores were used together as independent vari- BPre ⫽ baseline condition tendencies toward prepotent associates;
ables in predicting fluency and flexibility, and baseline and ability ARep ⫽ ability condition tendencies toward response repetition; APre ⫽
Repetition of Responses factor scores were used as independent ability condition tendencies toward prepotent associates.
 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356
RANDOM NUMBER GENERATION
thought patterning (vs. none) in terms of a task previously used
primarily to understand working memory processes (Baddeley,
AQ: 12 1986). Our results revealed that more patterned individuals were
not more or less creative overall, but that different types of thought
patterning, under different conditions, predicted different aspects
of divergent thinking and achievement. We discuss the findings in
terms of the two number generation factors assessed and their
distinct correlates.
Prepotent Associates as a Predictor of Fluency and
Flexibility
Fluency (and flexibility, which is highly correlated with flu-
ency) can be defined in terms of an ability to produce a larger
number of plausible responses to a given stimulus. Doing so
should be facilitated to the extent that the individual can overcome
highly stereotyped answers. To appreciate this point, consider the
ATTA question, “Just suppose you could. . .fly without being in an
airplane. . .What problems might this create? List as many as you
can.” Some prepotent responses to this question come to mind
quite easily. One might bump into objects in the air or perhaps fall
from the sky. Having generated such easier responses, the chal-
lenge is now to suppress them in favor of different, less prepotent
answers to the same question (e.g., one might develop skin cancer,
being less protected by the ozone layer). Individuals more capable
of suppressing prepotent associates might, thus, gain an advantage
because, in doing so, they can generate alternative retrieval strat-
egies to answer the same question.
Such reasoning led us to hypothesize that individuals exhibiting
greater prepotent associates in a number generation task would
exhibit less fluency (and flexibility) in their creative cognition.
AQ: 13 Such results were found. The caveat is that such relations were
particular to a number generation condition in which individuals
were trying to generate as random a number sequence as possible,
relative to a baseline condition in which they were not trying to do
so. Such results make sense from what we know about frontal lobe
processing. Overcoming prepotent associations, indeed, may be
one of the key purposes of the frontal lobes (Miller & Cohen,
2001). However, such frontal lobe resources are recruited selec-
AQ: 14 tively, specifically when the task conditions or the stimulus (such
as an incongruent Stroop stimulus) requires overcoming prepotent
associates (Kerns et al., 2004; Lieberman, 2003). It is for such
reasons that Prepotent Associates in the ability condition, specif-
ically, predicted fluency and flexibility.
Although these results are intuitive, they are entirely novel to the
creativity literature. Moreover, they pave the way for further
investigations of relations between basic cognitive mechanisms
with known neural correlates (van Veen & Carter, 2006) and
creative cognition. We suggest that the individual differences
approach that we adopted, although potentially vulnerable to third
variable considerations, is nonetheless especially well-suited to
examine potential relations of this type (Robinson & Compton,
2008). Nevertheless, it must be recognized that neither factor
predicted originality or creative achievements in the ability con-
dition. In understanding the latter aspects of creativity, instead,
baseline tendencies proved more useful.
7
Repetition of Responses as a Predictor of Originality
and Creative Achievement
Originality and creative achievement tend not to be highly
correlated (Ivcevic, 2009), yet we conceive of both of them in
terms of spontaneous tendencies that are trait-like. Individuals
simply differ in the originality of their responses (Ward, Smith, &
Finke, 1999), perhaps quite independent of efforts to be original.
Indeed, trying to force oneself to produce original responses is
quite likely to backfire (Amabile, 1983). We view creative
achievements similarly. To produce a play, paint a work of art, or
compose a concerto would seem to represent basal tendencies AQ: 15
differing between individuals, as there is much work to be done
before any concrete achievements occur. It is for such reasons, we
suggest, that only baseline tendencies toward repetition of re-
sponses predicted these creativity-related outcomes.
The literature on individual differences in executive functioning
has conceptualized the Repetition of Responses factor in terms of
failures in cognitive control (Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Towse &
Neil, 1998). However, we suggest that this is so only because no
prior studies in this literature, or any other that we know of, have
assessed individual differences in baseline tendencies toward re-
sponse repetition. Our results support the point that such baseline
tendencies toward response repetition predict higher rather than
lower levels of originality and achievement. The latter result is
particularly intuitive, as working and reworking one’s ideas would
seem necessary to produce substantial creative achievements (Si-
monton, 1999).
Our results can be conceptualized in terms of theories of cre- AQ: 16
ativity that posit that creativity benefits from a wider breadth of
attention (Kasof, 1997) or from associative tendencies (Mednick,
1962). Particularly, the Repetition of Responses factor quantifies
long-lagged associations and would, therefore, seem suitable in
assessing the extent to which remote associations among cognitive
elements characterize particular individuals. Our results are also
consistent with modern theories of repetitive thinking, which now
contend that repetitive thinking often serves the individual (Baars,
2010; Watkins, 2008). For example, repetitive thinking in the
context of spontaneous positive thoughts has been shown to pre-
dict higher levels of resilience and positive mood states (Cohn,
Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009). Rather than rely-
ing on self-reports of such tendencies, though, we defined them in
strictly cognitive terms. Thus, our baseline probe of response
repetition may prove to have value in other domains (e.g., problem
solving, academic achievement) in which positive outcomes are
likely to benefit from some degree of thought perseveration.
A central interest in our investigation was to predict creative
achievements. Along these lines, we found that baseline tendencies
toward response repetition predicted such achievements, even
when controlling for originality, fluency, and flexibility measures
of creative cognition. This dependent measure (the CAQ), though,
was self-reported in nature. Accordingly, it would be useful to
replicate our results in the context of more objective measures of
creative achievement. Even so, such measures would not have the
scope of the CAQ in that it quantifies a lifetime of such achieve-
ments across 10 different realms. There is also considerable evi-
dence for the validity of the scale (Carson et al., 2005; Silvia et al.,
2009). Regardless, some readers may be more comfortable with
 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356
8 ZABELINA, ROBINSON, COUNCIL, AND BRESIN
more objective measures of creative achievement, and we, there-
fore, encourage this direction of future research.
Final Considerations
There are limitations to the present study. Especially creative
individuals were not recruited. Replication efforts would be useful,
particularly in the context of processes and outcomes obtained
outside of the laboratory. Nonetheless, the present results do
suggest that distinct cognitive tendencies predict fluency and flex-
ibility on the one hand and originality and creative achievement on
the other hand, importantly so in terms of a very basic cognitive
task. In this respect, our results suggest that both patterned and
nonpatterned thinking are important to the creative realm but in
different and nuanced manners.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componen-
tial conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
357–376. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
AQ: 17 Artiges, E., Salame, P., Recasens, C., Poline, J., Attar-Levy, D., De la
Raillere, A., et al. (2000). Working memory control in patients with
schizophrenia: A PET study during a random number generation task.
The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1517–1519. doi:10.1176/
appi.ajp.157.9.1517
Baars, B. J. (2010). Spontaneous repetitive thoughts can be adaptive:
Postscript on “mind wandering.” Psychological Bulletin, 136, 208 –210.
doi:10.1037/a0018726
Baddeley, A., Emslie, H., Kolodny, J., & Duncan, J. (1998). Random
number generation and the executive control of working memory. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 819 – 852. doi:
10.1080/027249898391413
Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The capacity for generating information by ran-
domization. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 119 –
129. doi:10.1080/14640746608400019
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Brown, S., & Vaughan, C. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the
imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York, NY: Avery Publishing
Group.
Brugger, P., Monsch, A. U., Salmon, D. P., & Butters, N. (1996). Random
number generation in dementia of the Alzheimer’s type: A test of frontal
executive functions. Neuropsychologia, 34, 97–103. doi:10.1016/0028-
3932(95)00066-6
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability,
validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Question-
naire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1701_4
Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway,
A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life
satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9, 361–368. doi:10.1037/
a0015952
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, G. A. (1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity.
In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education
(pp. 269 –281). Needham Heights, MA: Viacom.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006).
On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect.
Science, 311, 1005–1007. doi:10.1126/science.1121629
Dodds, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (in press). A review of the
experimental literature on incubation in problem solving and creativity.
In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 3). Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511752247
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and
interference control function: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 133, 101–135.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence:
Explorations with gifted students. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002). Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults
Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Gottselig, J. M., Adam, M., Retey, J. V., Katami, R., Achermann, P., &
Landolt, H. (2006). Random number generation during sleep depriva-
tion: Effects of caffeine on response maintenance and stereotypy.
Journal of Sleep Research, 15, 31– 40. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2869.2006.00497.x
Groborz, M., & Nêcka, E. (2003). Creativity and cognitive control: Ex-
plorations of generation and evaluation skills. Creativity Research Jour-
nal, 15, 183–197. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ152&3_09
Heuer, H., Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2010). Random noun generation in
younger and older adults. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 63, 465– 478. doi:10.1080/17470210902974138
Heuer, H., Kohlisch, O., & Klein, W. (2005). The effects of total sleep
deprivation on the generation of random sequences of key-presses,
numbers and nouns. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
58A, 275–307. doi:10.1080/02724980343000855
Itagaki, F., Niewa, S. I., Itoh, K., & Momose, T. (1995). Random number
generation and the frontal cortex. International Journal of Psychophys-
iology, 19, 79 – 80. doi:10.1016/0167-8760(94)00083-Q
Ivcevic, Z. (2009). Creativity map: Toward the next generation of theories
of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3,
17–21. doi:10.1037/a0014918
Jahanshahi, M., & Dirnberger, G. (1999). The left dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex and random generation of responses: Studies with transcranial
magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychologia, 37, 181–190. doi:10.1016/
S0028-3932(98)00092-X
Jahanshahi, M., Profice, P., Brown, R. G., Ridding, M. C., Dirnberger, G.,
& Rothwell, J. C. (1998). The effects of transcranial magnetic stimula-
tion over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on suppression of habitual
counting during random number generation. Brain: A Journal of Neu-
rology, 121, 1533–1544. doi:10.1093/brain/121.8.1533
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Kasof, J. (1997). Creativity and breadth of attention. Creativity Research
Journal, 10, 303–315. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1004_2
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four
C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12. doi:
10.1037/a0013688
Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., III, Cho, R. Y., Stenger,
V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and
adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026. doi:10.1126/
science.1089910
Kim, K. H. (2008). Commentary: The Torrance tests of creative thinking
already overcome many of the perceived weaknesses that Silvia et al.’s
(2008) methods are intended to correct. Psychology of Aesthetics, Cre-
ativity, and the Arts, 2, 97–99. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.97
Lieberman, M. D. (2003). Reflexive and reflective judgment processes: A
social cognitive neuroscience approach. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams,
& W. von Hippel (Eds.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit pro-
cesses (pp. 44 – 67). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B.
Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp.
249 –268). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 tapraid5/aca-aca/aca-aca/aca00411/aca0245d11z xppws S⫽1 8/25/11 13:31 Art: 2010-0356
RANDOM NUMBER GENERATION
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process.
Psychological Review, 69, 220 –232. doi:10.1037/h0048850
Millar, G. W. (2002). The Torrance kids at mid-life. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal
cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. doi:
10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., & Howerter,
A. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their
contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis.
Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49 –100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York, NY: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
Panksepp, J. (2007). Can play diminish ADHD and facilitate the construc-
tion of the social brain? Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 16, 57– 66.
Robinson, M. D. (2007). Lives lived in milliseconds: Using cognitive
methods in personality research. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R.
Kreuger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychol-
ogy (pp. 345–359). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Robinson, M. D., & Compton, R. J. (2008). The happy mind in action: The
cognitive basis of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.),
The science of subjective well-being (pp. 220 –238). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Rosenberg, S., Weber, N., Crocq, M. A., Duval, F., & Macher, J. P. (1990).
Random number generation by normal, alcoholic and schizophrenic
subjects. Psychological Medicine, 20, 953–960. doi:10.1017/
S0033291700036643
Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg,
E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to
realization (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-
sociation. doi:10.1037/10692-002
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.
American Psychologist, 54, 93–105. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.93
Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-
specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative
self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3,
139 –148. doi:10.1037/a0014940
View publication stats
9
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on
creativity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Spatt, J., & Goldenberg, G. (1993). Components of random generation by
normal subjects and patients with dysexecutive syndrome. Brain and
Cognition, 23, 231–242. doi:10.1006/brcg.1993.1057
Spearman, C. (1931). Creative mind. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance rests of creative thinking-norms-
technical manual research ed.-figural tests, forms A and B. Princeton,
NJ: Personnel Press.
Towse, J. N., & Neil, D. (1998). Analyzing human random generation
behavior: A review of methods used and a computer program for
describing performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments &
Computers, 30, 583–591. doi:10.3758/BF03209475
van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2006). Conflict and cognitive control in the
brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 237–240. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00443.x
Vartanian, O. (2009). Variable attention facilitates creative problem solv-
ing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 57–59. doi:
10.1037/a0014781
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189 –212). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 163–206. doi:10.1037/0033-2909
.134.2.163
White, H. A., & Shah, P. (2006). Uninhibited imaginations: Creativity in
adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Personality and
Individual Differences, 40, 1121–1131. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.007
Zabelina, D. L., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). Creativity as flexible cognitive
control. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 136 –143.
doi:10.1037/a0017379
Received September 15, 2010
Revision received July 21, 2011
Accepted July 25, 2011 䡲