Description of Study Methodology and Results
The study was conducted in California using one hundred and fifteen undergraduates as participants. It used three selection criteria which demanded that participant is above 18 years, fluent in English and be computer literate. Out of the original number of participants, only the outcome of 112 participants was used since three participants were eliminated from the study owing to incomplete results. The participants completed the study using the 2006 version of MediaLab on Dell computers. The study employed the measure of a creativity test, creativity style and a performance evaluation (Nielsen, Pickett & Simonton, 2008).
The study randomly assigned the participants using one of the three conditions; conceptual creative methods control creative methods and experimental creative methods. Conceptual creative methods conditions sampled 37 participants; 40 participants have sampled on the creative control methods while experimental creative methods sampled 35 participants. The study based the instructions used in each of the three conditions on the general operation definition of experimental and conceptual creative methods.
The natural creative style of the participants was measured using an individual difference measure of creativity that incorporated both experimental and conceptual subscales. Several questions were employed to assess the creativity of the participants. The participants completed the test through filling questionnaires that contained 14 scale questions with a range of 1 (disagree strongly) and 7 (agree strongly). The questions were structured based on the definition of experimental and conceptual methods. On the other hand, divergent and convergent tasks were employed to test for creativity. It employed the use of both verbal and remote associates derived directly from Bowden and Beeman (2003). Convergent task utilized remote associates like a boat, sore, watch, ice and cheese, and four verbal associates like an unseen walker, man, light, and twin. On the other hand, the convergent tasks were constituted by numerous use tasks and attribute tasks. After the creative and creativity tests, the participants were placed under performance evaluation using PANAS measure. This measure was used so as to comprehend better the relationship between mood and creative output.
The results of the creative style indicated that he participants who used experimental creative approaches scored better than the participants who used conceptual creative methods. Experimental creative methods recorded a mean and a standard deviation of 3.07 and 2.22 respectively. On the other hand, conceptual creative methods recorded a mean and standard deviation of 2.03 and 1.93 respectively. All the convergent tasks were found to be correlated with an alpha level of 0.65. Similarly, the results of the performance evaluation indicated that the participants who used conceptual creative methods scored significantly higher than those who used their own creative methods (Nielsen, Pickett & Simonton, 2008).
Critique
According to the results of the study, it is apparent that the methods applied in drawing the conclusion of the study are operational and beneficial. However, the methods applied to this study exhibited some limitations which could have affected the result of the study. One of the outcomes of the study, such as the alpha level, indicates that the conceptual criteria are indeed related to a unified concept. On the other hand, the sample used for the study lacked significance value in the experimental creative method subscale. This limitation does allow the study to align well with Galensons’ “Old Masters” for this sample used in the study. According to Galenson, the majority of the contestant in the study should not use experimental methods. Additionally, the method did not include older participants, thus the lack of certain valuable metrics such as significance (Nielsen, Pickett & Simonton, 2008).
The study limited its measures and tasks to measures of potential for creative thought as opposed to creativity itself. The limitations demonstrated in the study do not present a limiting factor for its application in future research. It can be employed as a starting point in solving some of the challenges relating to Galenson’s theory. It is imperative for future research to outline enhanced operational definition of experimental creative methods. As opposed to the method used in this study, future studies should seek to determine whether age is a factor while examining a test on the relationship between mood and creativity.
References
Nielsen, B. D., Pickett, C. L., & Simonton, D. K. (2008). Conceptual versus experimental creativity: Which works best on convergent and divergent thinking tasks?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 131.
