This week I had the
pleasure of reading a wonderful article about the creative process according to
Vladimir Nabokov (to read the
article, click here). Essentially the article considers the question of
whether a writer ought to wait for creativity to strike before composing, or
sit down to compose until the creativity is flowing. While I see the merit of
waiting for creativity to strike, some of us have professions where we have to
produce writing and ideas on a more regular and predictable schedule. So, while
in theory I align with Nabokov, in practice they fall short of reality.
Fortunately, psychology has quite a bit to say about how creativity works and,
more importantly, how it can be harnessed. So this week I will share with you just one
recent finding study on:
What can we do to think more creatively?
In this study, Drs. Carine
Lewis and Peter Lovatt of the University of Hertfordshire were interested in
how improvisation as a practice helps to promote divergent thinking. In this
study, improvisation was defined as a form of creativity where words, music or
ideas are formed spontaneously with no opportunity for preparation or
correction. The outcome in this study, divergent thinking, was defined as a critical
component of problem solving which involves generating a range of possible
solutions for a particular task or problem. This would be compared with
convergent thinking which requires a single definitive answer to a task or
problem, as in simple arithmetic.
To test this relationship,
the researchers recruited 41 undergraduate students and randomized them into
two conditions. In the first condition, participants participated in 20 minutes
of improvisation activities of different levels of difficulty, such as
generating a story or speech or having a conversation with a stranger on a
random topic. The second condition was a control condition where participants
completed similar tasks where preparation was allowed. Following the two
conditions, all participants completed the Alternative Uses Task (AUT) where
they were given the names of common objects (e.g., a paper clip, remote
control) and asked to generate as many uses for the object as possible. Their
answers were then scored by 3 independent raters for number of responses,
originality, level of detail, and number of different categories of uses.
The researchers found that
participants in the improvisation condition generated more responses, in more
categories, that were more original than those in the control condition.
To follow up on this
study, they were interested in whether musical improvisation had the same
benefits as verbal improvisation. To do this, they recruited 36 undergraduate
musicians and randomized them to an improvisation or a control condition. In
the improvisation condition, the musicians completed two musical tasks. In the
first, they heard a unique 10-15 second clip of music and were required to “respond”
with their own instrument to that clip. In the second, they were shown emotional
images and were asked to generate a response to each image with their
instrument. Participants in the control condition were asked to practice and
perform a known piece of music. After these two conditions, the participants
completed the AUT.
Again, the researchers
found that musicians who had completed the improvisation condition generated
more responses, in more categories, and with more originality than their
musician peers in the control condition.
Taken together, these two
studies suggest that practicing improvisation in either music or words helps us
to think “outside the box” in other situations. Another important contribution this
study has made is that previous research would suggest that the best
facilitator of creative thinking is positive mood, however mood was controlled
for in both studies, and thus practicing improvisation has these effects on
creative thinking above and beyond the impact your mood has. In other words, you
gain something from improvisation even if you don’t enjoy it.
One question I still have is
how the timing of improvisation plays a role here. In both of the above
experiments, the participants completed the improvisation tasks immediately
before the AUT. I wonder whether the effect on divergent thinking would have
been greater or smaller had the AUT been the following day, or if the
improvisation tasks had occurred every day for a week, or even once a week for
a month. What dose of improvisation should we be giving ourselves? Also, I
wonder about the developmental nature of creative thinking in general. Are the
benefits of improvisation greater among children or is this unique to adults? Is
this something that could be incorporated into curricula to promote a new
generation of creative thinkers?
So what does this mean for
us? To me, this means that for all of my students who complain that “they just
aren’t creative,” I can show them evidence that they can be with practice. Many
people hold the belief that creativity is one of those traits that you are
either born with or you are not. This study shows us that while the inclination
towards creative projects may be inherent, anyone can be more creative with
practice. Lucky for us, there are many ways to practice improvisation to gain
some of these benefits. My personal favorite is playing Taboo.
Lewis, C., & Lovatt,
P. (2013). Breaking Away from Set Patterns of Thinking: Improvisation and
Divergent Thinking. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 9, 46-58.
No comments:
Post a Comment