Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01152-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
People can solve problems in two main styles: through a methodical analysis, or by a sudden insight (also known as ‘Aha!’ or ‘Eureka!’ experience). Analytical solutions are achieved primarily with conscious deliberation in a trial-and-error fashion. ‘Aha!’ moments, instead, happen suddenly, often without conscious deliberation and are considered a critical facet of creative cognition. Previous research has indicated an association between creativity and risk taking (a personality trait); however, few studies have investigated how a short-term situational state of risk modulates these two different problem-solving styles. In this research, we looked at how both state and trait risks taking is related to different problem-solving styles. To measure risk as a personality trait, we administered the Balloon Analog Risk Task. To investigate risk as a state, we created a scenario, where people had to bet on their problem-solving performance at the beginning of each trial, and we compared the performance of this group with a control group that did not have to bet. The results show no association between risk as a trait and problem-solving style; however, the risk state scenario did produce a shift in dominant problem-solving style with participants in the risk scenario group solving more problems via analysis. We also found that two factors are related to problem-solving accuracy: the amount bet (i.e., when people place higher bets, they solve more problems), and success on the previous trial, especially if the solution was achieved via analysis. Furthermore, the data reveal that when under risk, females are better problem solvers than males.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 16 KB)426_2019_1152_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Aklin, W. M., Lejuez, C. W., Zvolensky, M. J., Kahler, C. W., & Gwadz, M. (2005). Evaluation of behavioral measures of risk taking propensity with inner-city adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.12.007. PubMedCrossRef
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Ansburg, P. I., & Dominowski, R. I. (2000). Promoting insightful problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(1), 30–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01201.x. CrossRef
Bannier, C. E., & Neubert, M. (2016). Gender differences in financial risk taking: The role of financial literacy and risk tolerance. Economics Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.05.033. CrossRef
Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect, and personality: Unconscious coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1993. PubMedCrossRef
Benedek, M. (2018). 10 Internally Directed Attention in Creative Cognition. The Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity, 180.
Bowden, E., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9(6), 435–440. CrossRef
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 35(4), 634–639. CrossRef
Cristofori, I., Salvi, C., Beeman, M., & Grafman, J. (2018). The effects of expected reward on creative problem solving. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(5), 925–931. CrossRef
Cummings, L. L., & Mize, G. W. (1968). Risk-taking and organizational creativity. Personnel Administration, 1(31), 38–47.
Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01265.x. CrossRef
Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and Problem Solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 273–278). MIT Press.
Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-73188.8.131.523. PubMedCrossRef
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Verbal reports on thinking. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Multilingual matters, No. 30. Introspection in second language research (pp. 24–53). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Fecteau, S., Knoch, D., Fregni, F., Sultani, N., Boggio, P., & Pascual-leone, A. (2007). Diminishing risk taking behavior by modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex: A direct current stimulation study. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(46), 12500–12505. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3283-07.2007. PubMedCrossRef
Federmeier, K. D., Kirson, D. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2001). Effects of transient, mild mood states on semantic memory organization and use: An event-related potential investigation in humans. Neuroscience Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(01)01843-2. PubMedCrossRef
Fein, G., & Chang, M. (2008). Smaller feedback ERN amplitudes during the BART are associated with a greater family history density of alcohol problems in treatment-naïve alcoholics. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.07.017. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Förster, J., & Werth, L. (2003). Attentional priming effects on creativity. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651420. CrossRef
Grunewald, K., & Bowden, E. M. (2018). Whose insight is it anyway?. In Insight (pp. 28–50). Routledge.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence (Vol. 5). New York: McGraw Hill.
Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: self–others discrepancies in risk preference. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 126(1), 45. CrossRef
Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1999). Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(2), 165–179. CrossRef
Holmes, J. B., Waters, H. S., & Rajaram, S. (1998). The phenomenology of false memories: Episodic content and confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-73184.108.40.2066. CrossRef
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.116. CrossRef
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1683. PubMedCrossRef
Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: It is just not worth the risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 710–717. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3522.214.171.1240. PubMedCrossRef
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097. CrossRef
Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115154. PubMedCrossRef
Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind: Neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17(10), 882–890. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01798.x. PubMedCrossRef
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., & Brown, R. a. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 8(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75. PubMedCrossRef
Lejuez, C. W., Simmons, B. L., Aklin, W. M., Daughters, S. B., & Dvir, S. (2004). Risk taking propensity and risky sexual behavior of individuals in residential substance use treatment. Addictive Behaviors. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.02.035. CrossRefPubMed
Lemaster, P., & Strough, J. N. (2014). Beyond mars and venus: Understanding gender differences in financial risk tolerance. Journal of Economic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.11.001. CrossRef
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1992). Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99(1), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.172. CrossRef
McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., & Scheinberg, S. (1992). Elitists, risk takers, and rugged individualists? An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90008-F. CrossRef
Mednick, S. A. (1968). Remote associates test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213–214. CrossRef
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Communications (Vol. 104). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Nygren, T. E. (1998). Reacting to Perceived High- and Low-Risk Win-Lose Opportunities in a Risky Decision- Making Task : Is It Framing or Affect or Bth? Motivation and Emotion, 22(1), 73–98. CrossRef
Nygren, T. E., Isen, A. M., Taylor, P. J., & Dulin, J. (1996). The influence of positive affect on the decision rule in risk situations: Focus on outcome (and especially avoidance of loss) rather than probability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0038. CrossRef
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6%3C768::AID-JCLP2270510607%3E3.0.CO;2-1 PubMedCrossRef
Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00026-3. CrossRef
Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Bowden, E., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2016). Insight solutions are correct more often than those achieved by analysis. Thinking and Reasoning. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1141798. PubMedCrossRef
Salvi, C., Cristofori, I., Grafman, J., & Beeman, M. (2016). The politics of insight. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1136338. PubMedCrossRef
Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 97–133). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Shen, W., Hommel, B., Yuan, Y., & Zhang, W. (2018). Risk taking and creativity: Convergent, but not divergent thinking is better in low-risk takers. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2).
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. (2015). The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness the science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 487–518. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331. CrossRef
Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.4.385. CrossRef
Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Choma, B., & Denham, S. L. (2018). The ‘right’ side of creativity: Creative personality and social risk taking predict political party affiliation. Creativity Research Journal, 00(00), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1540252. CrossRef
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1993. CrossRefPubMed
- The relation between state and trait risk taking and problem-solving
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772