Noticing Unexpected Objects Improves the Creation of Creative Solutions—Inattentional Blindness by Children Influences Divergent Thinking Negatively
Noticing Unexpected Objects Improves the Creation of Creative Solutions—Inattentional Blindness by Children Influences Divergent Thinking Negatively
复制标题
注意到意外的物体可以提高创造性解决方案的创造能力——儿童的无意识盲目性会对发散性思维产生负面影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Memmert
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Memmert
在紧张和需要注意力的任务中，突然发现意想不到的对象或解决方案通常与独创性甚至创造力有关。例如，一个计算机程序员在琢磨了几个小时错误的程序代码后，打电话给他的同事，而他的同事实际上一眼就发现了一个他自己都没有意识到的异常。现在这个项目进行得很顺利，据说这位同事是一个有创造力的人。在一般和更科学的背景下，Sternberg和Lubart（1999，第3页）和其他人（例如，Runco, 2007; Ward, 2007）将创造力定义为“产生新颖（即原创，意想不到）和适当（即有用）的工作的能力”。“这项研究调查了无意失明（IB）对创造性思维的影响。IB范式表明，如果注意力被转移到另一个物体上，观察者有时会注意不到一个意想不到的物体，即使它就在他们面前（Mack & Rock, 1998; Most, Scholl, Clifford, & Simons, 2005）。在这个项目中，之所以选择儿童作为研究对象，是因为最近的神经科学研究表明，创造性发展的停滞可能发生在8岁以上（Huttenlocher, 1990; Chugani, Phelps, & Mazziotta, 1987）。7岁左右的儿童表现出人类初级视觉皮层突触的绝对数量和密度，以及枕叶皮层静息时葡萄糖摄取的PET测量值。这些指标目前与创造力有关（Ashby, Valentin, & Turken, 2002; Bekhtereva, Dan 'ko, Starchenko, Pakhomov, & Medvedev, 2001）。因此，最大限度地提高了发散思维数据中出现大方差的概率。本研究将首次探讨发散性思维与IB之间的联系。因此，本研究扩展了Kasof（1997）和其他人（参见Dewing & Battye, 1971; Martindale, 1999; Mendelsohn, 1976; Mendelsohn & Griswold, 1964）探索不同类型的注意力过程与创造性表现之间关系的工作。根据这些先前的结果，人们假设注意力表现越高（IB越低）的儿童在发散思维方面表现得越好。之所以使用发散性思维测试，是因为发散性思维是创造力综合体的多面现象中研究最多、最普遍认可的组成部分之一（Sternberg, 1999; Runco, 2007）。发散性思维不应该被解释为创造力或创造性思维的同义词。发散思维的作用和定义现在是当前讨论的一个话题（Dietrich, 2007; Ward, 2007; Ward, Finke, & Smith, 2002）。
During intense and attention-demanding tasks, the sudden discovery of unexpected objects or solutions is often associated with originality or even creativity. For instance, a computer programmer, after having mulled over a faulty programming code for hours, calls his colleague who discovers—virtually at first sight—an anomaly that he, himself, was not aware of. Now the program runs smoothly and the colleague is said to be a creative person. In a general and more scientific context, Sternberg and Lubart (1999, p. 3) and others (e.g., Runco, 2007; Ward, 2007) defined creativity as ‘‘the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful).’’ This study investigated the influence of inattentional blindness (IB) on creative thinking. The IB paradigm demonstrated that if attention is diverted to another object, observers sometimes fail to notice an unexpected object, even if it is right in front of them (Mack & Rock, 1998; Most, Scholl, Clifford, & Simons, 2005). For this project, children were chosen as subjects because recent research from the neurosciences has suggested that stagnation in creative development could occur above 8 years (Huttenlocher, 1990; Chugani, Phelps, & Mazziotta, 1987). Children up to the age of around 7 years exhibit the greatest absolute number and density of synapses in the human primary visual cortex, as well as resting glucose uptake in the occipital cortex as measured by PET. These indicators are currently associated with creativity (Ashby, Valentin, & Turken, 2002; Bekhtereva, Dan’ko, Starchenko, Pakhomov, & Medvedev, 2001). Therefore, the probability to have great variance in the divergent thinking data was maximized. This study will be the first to examine the link between divergent thinking and IB. Therefore, this investigation expanded the work of Kasof (1997) and others (cf. Dewing & Battye, 1971; Martindale, 1999; Mendelsohn, 1976; Mendelsohn & Griswold, 1964) that explored the relationship between different kinds of attention processes and creative performance. According to these previous results, it was assumed that children with higher attention performance (less IB) perform better in terms of divergent thinking. Divergent thinking tests were used because divergent thinking is one of the most studied and most commonly recognized components of the multifaceted phenomenon of the creativity complex (Sternberg, 1999; Runco, 2007). Divergent thinking is not to be interpreted as synonymous with creativity or creative thinking. The role and definition of divergent thinking is now a topic of current discussions (Dietrich, 2007; Ward, 2007; Ward, Finke, & Smith, 2002).