{"title":"创造性的悬崖错觉。","authors":"Brian J Lucas, Loran F Nordgren","doi":"10.1073/pnas.2005620117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Across eight studies, we tested whether people understand the time course of their own creativity. Prior literature finds that creativity tends to improve across an ideation session. Here we compared people's beliefs against their actual creative performance. Consistent with prior research, we found that people's creativity, on aggregate, remained constant or improved across an ideation session. However, people's beliefs did not match this reality. We consistently found that people expected their creativity to decline over time. We refer to this misprediction as the creative cliff illusion. Study 1 found initial evidence of this effect across an ideation task. We found further evidence in a sample with high domain-relevant knowledge (study 2), when creativity judgments were elicited retrospectively (study 3), and across a multiday study (study 5). We theorized the effect occurs because people mistakenly associate creativity (the novelty and usefulness of an idea) with idea production (the ability to generate an idea). Study 4 found evidence consistent with this mechanism. The creative cliff illusion was attenuated among those with high levels of everyday creative experience (study 6) and after a knowledge intervention that increased awareness of the effect (study 7). Demonstrating the impact of creativity beliefs on downstream performance, study 8 found that declining creativity beliefs negatively influenced task persistence and creative performance, suggesting that people underinvest in ideation. This research contributes to work on prediction in the creative domain and demonstrates the importance of understanding creativity beliefs for predicting creative performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":9,"journal":{"name":"ACS Catalysis ","volume":" ","pages":"19830-19836"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1073/pnas.2005620117","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The creative cliff illusion.\",\"authors\":\"Brian J Lucas, Loran F Nordgren\",\"doi\":\"10.1073/pnas.2005620117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Across eight studies, we tested whether people understand the time course of their own creativity. Prior literature finds that creativity tends to improve across an ideation session. Here we compared people's beliefs against their actual creative performance. Consistent with prior research, we found that people's creativity, on aggregate, remained constant or improved across an ideation session. However, people's beliefs did not match this reality. We consistently found that people expected their creativity to decline over time. We refer to this misprediction as the creative cliff illusion. Study 1 found initial evidence of this effect across an ideation task. We found further evidence in a sample with high domain-relevant knowledge (study 2), when creativity judgments were elicited retrospectively (study 3), and across a multiday study (study 5). We theorized the effect occurs because people mistakenly associate creativity (the novelty and usefulness of an idea) with idea production (the ability to generate an idea). Study 4 found evidence consistent with this mechanism. The creative cliff illusion was attenuated among those with high levels of everyday creative experience (study 6) and after a knowledge intervention that increased awareness of the effect (study 7). Demonstrating the impact of creativity beliefs on downstream performance, study 8 found that declining creativity beliefs negatively influenced task persistence and creative performance, suggesting that people underinvest in ideation. This research contributes to work on prediction in the creative domain and demonstrates the importance of understanding creativity beliefs for predicting creative performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Catalysis \",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"19830-19836\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1073/pnas.2005620117\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Catalysis \",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005620117\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/8/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Catalysis ","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005620117","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Across eight studies, we tested whether people understand the time course of their own creativity. Prior literature finds that creativity tends to improve across an ideation session. Here we compared people's beliefs against their actual creative performance. Consistent with prior research, we found that people's creativity, on aggregate, remained constant or improved across an ideation session. However, people's beliefs did not match this reality. We consistently found that people expected their creativity to decline over time. We refer to this misprediction as the creative cliff illusion. Study 1 found initial evidence of this effect across an ideation task. We found further evidence in a sample with high domain-relevant knowledge (study 2), when creativity judgments were elicited retrospectively (study 3), and across a multiday study (study 5). We theorized the effect occurs because people mistakenly associate creativity (the novelty and usefulness of an idea) with idea production (the ability to generate an idea). Study 4 found evidence consistent with this mechanism. The creative cliff illusion was attenuated among those with high levels of everyday creative experience (study 6) and after a knowledge intervention that increased awareness of the effect (study 7). Demonstrating the impact of creativity beliefs on downstream performance, study 8 found that declining creativity beliefs negatively influenced task persistence and creative performance, suggesting that people underinvest in ideation. This research contributes to work on prediction in the creative domain and demonstrates the importance of understanding creativity beliefs for predicting creative performance.
期刊介绍:
ACS Catalysis is an esteemed journal that publishes original research in the fields of heterogeneous catalysis, molecular catalysis, and biocatalysis. It offers broad coverage across diverse areas such as life sciences, organometallics and synthesis, photochemistry and electrochemistry, drug discovery and synthesis, materials science, environmental protection, polymer discovery and synthesis, and energy and fuels.
The scope of the journal is to showcase innovative work in various aspects of catalysis. This includes new reactions and novel synthetic approaches utilizing known catalysts, the discovery or modification of new catalysts, elucidation of catalytic mechanisms through cutting-edge investigations, practical enhancements of existing processes, as well as conceptual advances in the field. Contributions to ACS Catalysis can encompass both experimental and theoretical research focused on catalytic molecules, macromolecules, and materials that exhibit catalytic turnover.