Creativity and Perspective: Effects of Incubation and Perspective on Creative Idea Generation
Last registered on November 13, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Creativity and Perspective: Effects of Incubation and Perspective on Creative Idea Generation
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003374
Initial registration date
October 02, 2018
Last updated
November 13, 2018 6:03 PM EST
Location(s)

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Cambridge
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Cambridge
PI Affiliation
Rollins University
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2018-11-27
End date
2018-11-29
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study explores how well individuals perform in creative tasks when being asked to think in terms of themselves/others/in general. Further, this study explores how creative performance is affected by financial incentives.
This study focuses on the aspect of the creative process called 'incubation,' which means that participants will be introduced to the creative task, then interrupted and given a period of time (an incubation period) to wait before doing the task again. The results of the initial task and the final task are the focus of the study.
In a randomized controlled trial, participants will be asked to perform a creativity task under different perspectives (others/self/in general) and under different incentive schemes (financial incentive, control). after performing the task, participants will be given a period of time to fill in questions and perform a menial task. After this period of time, participants will perform the creativity task again.
The first creativity task participants perform will replicate a previous study, while also adding an additional condition (the financial incentive). The final creativity task, after the incubation period, will also be measured to see if the initial manipulations in the first task affected the performance in the final task.
Our three measures for the creativity tasks are (1) total number of ideas, (2) average creativity rating by two independent judges, and (3) total number of creative ideas (ideas that achieve an average rating of 7 or higher from the independent judges)

External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Ebert, Charlie, Raghabendra KC and Jaideep Prabhu. 2018. "Creativity and Perspective: Effects of Incubation and Perspective on Creative Idea Generation." AEA RCT Registry. November 13. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3374/history/37244
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2018-11-28
Intervention End Date
2018-11-29
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our first dependent measure is creativity as usually measured through Guilford's Alternative Uses Task. Namely, we will total the number of uses generated for each participant.
As a second measure, we will find the average creativity rating for an individual’s generated ideas. Ideas will be rated by 2 raters (1-10 from low to high creativity) and these rating swill be averaged to get an average rating for each idea. Then, all the average ratings of the ideas a participant generated will be averaged to get the participant’s average creativity score.
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.

Finally, a third criterion is the total number of ideas that achieve an average creativity rating of above seven from the raters. As of right now, this measurement has only been ascribed to hypothesis number 5.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
We are also measuring perspective taking, prosocial motivation, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. We expect to see people in the others-perspective condition have a higher amount of perspective taking in the initial creativity task than those in the self-perspective condition or general-perspective condition. We expect intrinsic motivation not to be affected by the perspective manipulations, however, we do expect the financial incentive to positively increase intrinsic motivation across perspective conditions. We also don't expect the prosocial motivation to be affected by any 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.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
This study uses a 3X2 between-subjects factorial design. There are two interventions:
(1) The manipulation of perspective during habit formation (others/self/general)
(2) The type of incentive given during creativity tasks (financial incentive/no incentive)
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
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.

I believe that Mechanical Turk, which is the distribution system for the study, randomizes the sample we receive, within our inclusion restrictions.
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
At least180 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
At least 180 individual
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
At least 30 individuals within each treatment and control
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Criterion for significance is .05. Minor significance is .1 Power against alternative hypothesis is conventionally .80, but we would like .95 Ideally 30 individuals in each of the six condition groups, with an ideal total of 180 participants. We may accept more participants, just in case exclusions become dangerous to the validity of the study. The test will be two-tailed.
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
Judge Business School Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2018-05-31
IRB Approval Number
18/028