Investigating links between creativity anxiety, creative performance, and state-level anxiety and effort during creative thinking.

Identifying ways to enable people to reach their creative potential is a core goal of creativity research with implications for education and professional attainment. Recently, we identified a potential barrier to creative achievement: creativity anxiety (i.e., anxiety specific to creative thinking). Initial work found that creativity anxiety is associated with fewer real-world creative achievements. However, the more proximal impacts of creativity anxiety remain unexplored. In particular, understanding how to overcome creativity anxiety requires understanding how creativity anxiety may or may not impact creative cognitive performance, and how it may relate to state-level anxiety and effort while completing creative tasks. The present study sought to address this gap by measuring creativity anxiety alongside several measures of creative performance, while concurrently surveying state-level anxiety and effort. Results indicated that creativity anxiety was, indeed, predictive of poor creative performance, but only on some of the tasks included. We also found that creativity anxiety predicted both state anxiety and effort during creative performance. Interestingly, state anxiety and effort did not explain the associations between creativity anxiety and creative performance. Together, this work suggests that creativity anxiety can often be overcome in the performance of creative tasks, but likewise points to increased state anxiety and effort as factors that may make creative performance and achievement fragile in more demanding real-world contexts.

Analogical mapping across sensory modalities and evidence for a general analogy factor.

Analogy is a central component of human cognition. Analogical "mapping" of similarities between pieces of information present in our experiences supports cognitive and social development, classroom learning, and creative insights and innovation. To date, analogical mapping has primarily been studied within separate modalities of information (e.g., verbal analogies between words, visuo-spatial analogies between objects). However, human experience, in development and adulthood, includes highly variegated information (e.g., words, sounds, objects) received via multiple sensory and information-processing pathways (e.g., visual vs. auditory pathways). Whereas cross-modal correspondences (e.g., between pitch and height) have been observed, the correspondences were between individual items, rather than between relations. Thus, analogical mapping (characterized by second-order relations between relations) has not been directly tested as a basis for cross-modal correspondence. Here, we devised novel cross-modality analogical stimuli (lines-to-sounds, lines-to-words, words-to-sounds) that explicated second-order comparisons between relations. In four samples across three studies-participants demonstrated well-above-chance identification of cross-modal second-order relations, providing robust evidence of analogy across modalities. Further, performance across all analogy types was explained by a single factor, indicating a modality-general analogical ability (i.e., an "analo-g" factor). Analo-g explained performance over-and-above fluid intelligence as well as verbal and spatial abilities, though a stronger relationship to verbal than visuo-spatial ability emerged, consistent with verbal/semantic contributions to analogy. The present data suggests novel questions about our ability to find/learn second-order relations among the diverse information sources that populate human experience, and about cross-modal human and AI analogical mapping in developmental, educational, and creative contexts.

What Makes Mental Modeling Difficult? Normative Data for the Multidimensional Relational Reasoning Task.

Relational reasoning is a complex form of human cognition involving the evaluation of relations between mental representations of information. Prior studies have modified stimulus properties of relational reasoning problems and examined differences in difficulty between different problem types. While subsets of these stimulus properties have been addressed in separate studies, there has not been a comprehensive study, to our knowledge, which investigates all of these properties in the same set of stimuli. This investigative gap has resulted in different findings across studies which vary in task design, making it challenging to determine what stimulus properties make relational reasoning-and the putative formation of mental models underlying reasoning-difficult. In this article, we present the Multidimensional Relational Reasoning Task (MRRT), a task which systematically varied an array of stimulus properties within a single set of relational reasoning problems. Using a mixed-effects framework, we demonstrate that reasoning problems containing a greater number of the premises as well as multidimensional relations led to greater task difficulty. The MRRT has been made publicly available for use in future research, along with normative data regarding the relative difficulty of each problem.

Developing a neurally informed ontology of creativity measurement.

A central challenge for creativity research-as for all areas of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience-is to establish a mapping between constructs and measures (i.e., identifying a set of tasks that best captures a set of creative abilities). A related challenge is to achieve greater consistency in the measures used by different researchers; inconsistent measurement hinders progress toward shared understanding of cognitive and neural components of creativity. New resources for aggregating neuroimaging data, and the emergence of methods for identifying structure in multivariate data, present the potential for new approaches to address these challenges. Identifying meta-analytic structure (i.e., similarity) in neural activity associated with creativity tasks might help identify subsets of these tasks that best reflect the similarity structure of creativity-relevant constructs. Here, we demonstrated initial proof-of-concept for such an approach. To build a model of similarity between creativity-relevant constructs, we first surveyed creativity researchers. Next, we used NeuroSynth meta-analytic software to generate maps of neural activity robustly associated with tasks intended to measure the same set of creativity-relevant constructs. A representational similarity analysis-based approach identified particular constructs-and particular tasks intended to measure those constructs-that positively or negatively impacted the model fit. This approach points the way to identifying optimal sets of tasks to capture elements of creativity (i.e., dimensions of similarity space among creativity constructs), and has long-term potential to meaningfully advance the ontological development of creativity research with the rapid growth of creativity neuroscience. Because it relies on neuroimaging meta-analysis, this approach has more immediate potential to inform longer-established fields for which more extensive sets of neuroimaging data are already available.