Field
Trial Title
|
Before
Creativity, perspective, and incubation in alternative uses tasks
|
After
Creativity and Perspective: Effects of Incubation on Divergent Thinking
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
October 23, 2018
|
After
October 30, 2018
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
October 24, 2018
|
After
October 31, 2018
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
October 03, 2018 02:24 PM
|
After
October 23, 2018 04:33 PM
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
October 23, 2018
|
After
October 30, 2018
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
October 24, 2018
|
After
October 31, 2018
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Creativity as measured through Guilford's Alternative Uses Task (total number of uses generated)
Consensual assessment of creativity as measured by raters (1-10 from low to high creativity)
|
After
Creativity as measured through Guilford's Alternative Uses Task (total number of uses generated)
Consensual assessment of creativity as measured by 2 raters (1-10 from low to high creativity)
Criterion for creativity based off the article: Silvia, Paul J., Beate P. Winterstein, John T. Willse, Christopher M. Barona, Joshua T. Cram, Karl I. Hess, Jenna L. Martinez, and Crystal A. Richard (2008), “Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods.,” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2 (2), 68.
two raters will rate the ideas generated. The ratings for each idea will be averaged to create an average creativity score for each idea. Then the ideas that correspond to each individual will be averaged to get a participant creativity score.
We will also measure creativity by the standard measure of total number of ideas generated.
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
Randomization done in office by a computer
|
After
Randomization is done through the qualtrics platform, which allows for randomization within its coding. Participants will be randomly and evenly distributed into the different conditions.
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
|
After
Criterion for significance is .05.
Power against alternative hypothesis is conventionally .80, but we would like .95
Ideally 33 individuals in each of the six condition groups, with an ideal total of 200 participants.
The test will be two-tailed.
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
|
After
Our intervention manipulates perspective. We ask people to come up with alternative uses for an every-day item (ex. brick) under explicit instructions to think in terms of themselves, others, or in general. What are some alternative uses (you might have/others might have) for a (item).
Above this, we include financial incentive as an additional condition. Specifically, we incentivize participants to create as many creative ideas as they can within a time period. This leaves us with a 2X3 design: 2 (financial incentive / no financial incentive) by 3 (self perspective / others perspective / general perspective).
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
|
After
We are measuring perspective taking, prosocial motivation, and intrinsic motivation as well. We expect to see people in the 'others' perspective to have a higher amount of perspective taking than those in teh others or general group when they do the alternative uses task. We expect intrinsic motivation not to be affected by the perspective manipulations, however, we do expect the financial incentive to positively affect intrinsic motivation. We also don't expect the prosocial motivation to be affected by either of the manipulations (perspective or financial incentive)
Intrinsic, prosocial, and perspective taking scales were adapted from the paper: Grant, Adam M. and James W. Berry (2011), “The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity,” Academy of management journal, 54 (1), 73–96.
|