Do tests of divergent thinking have an experiential bias

By Mark A. Runco, Selcuk Acar. 2010

92 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Mechanical Engineering, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6763a56ea9bcbb80997d88a6d159283064b06266

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Roger E. Beaty
2. Paul J Silvia
3. Emily C. Nusbaum
4. R. Reiter‐Palmon
5. Baptiste Barbot
6. Boris Forthmann
7. Maciej Karwowski
8. James C. Kaufman

In Mechanical Engineering

1. Paul J Silvia
2. R. Reiter‐Palmon
3. Roger E. Beaty
4. Boris Forthmann
5. Baptiste Barbot
6. Emily C. Nusbaum

In Strategy and Management

1. R. Reiter‐Palmon
2. Roger E. Beaty
3. Paul J Silvia
4. Emily C. Nusbaum

Citations in the corpus

• Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. (2019, background): “Old/new scoring instructs participants to classify their responses as “old” if they had the idea before working on the task (the idea is just retrieved; see also Runco & Acar, 2010) or “new” if they did not know the idea beforehand (the idea is generated rather than retrieved).”
• Verbal fluency and creativity: General and specific contributions of broad retrieval ability (Gr) factors to divergent thinking (2013, background): “In fact, researchers commonly don't inform participants to be creative (e.g., Runco & Acar, 2010).”
• Ready, Set, Create: What Instructing People to "Be Creative" Reveals About the Meaning and Mechanisms of Divergent Thinking (2014, methodology): “What Runco and Acar (2010) describe as the “standard instructions” thus systematically underestimate creativity.”