Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223958943
CITATIONS READS
32 83
7 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jack A Goncalo on 16 June 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on April 3, 2012 as doi:10.1177/0956797611429801
Research Article
Psychological Science
Angela K.-y. Leung1, Suntae Kim2 , Evan Polman3, Lay See Ong1,
Lin Qiu4, Jack A. Goncalo5, and Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks2
1
School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University; 2Ross School of Business, University of Michigan;
3
Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University; 4Division of Psychology, Nanyang Technological
University; and 5Department of Organizational Behavior, Cornell University
Abstract
Creativity is a highly sought-after skill. Prescriptive advice for inspiring creativity abounds in the form of metaphors: People
are encouraged to think outside the box, to consider a problem on one hand, then on the other hand, and to put two
and two together to achieve creative breakthroughs. These metaphors suggest a connection between concrete bodily
experiences and creative cognition. Inspired by recent advances in the understanding of body-mind linkages in the research
on embodied cognition, we explored whether enacting metaphors for creativity enhances creative problem solving. Our
findings from five studies revealed that both physical and psychological embodiment of metaphors for creativity promoted
convergent thinking and divergent thinking (i.e., fluency, flexibility, or originality) in problem solving. Going beyond prior
research, which focused primarily on the kind of embodiment that primes preexisting knowledge, we provide the first
evidence that embodiment can also activate cognitive processes that facilitate the generation of new ideas and connections.
Keywords
creativity, cognitive processes, mental models
Received 3/11/11; Revision accepted 10/18/11
Metaphors about creative thinking abound in everyday par- or forward appears to cue memories of past events or thoughts
lance. Creativity presumably follows from thinking outside about future events, respectively (Miles, Nind, & Macrae,
the box, from considering a problem on the one hand, then 2010).
on the other hand, and from putting two and two together. To explain these phenomena, accounts of metaphor-
Such prescriptive advice is common to people in research labs, enriched social cognition postulate that metaphors operate
advertising teams, the halls of higher education, and other con- through a conceptual mapping process whereby source con-
texts in which pioneering, novel approaches to pressing prob- cepts are mentally associated with superficially dissimilar tar-
lems are valued. In this article, we report results from five get concepts (Landau, Meier, & Keefer, 2010; see also
experiments in which we examined the psychological potency IJzerman & Koole, 2010). The use of metaphors may therefore
of these creative metaphors by investigating whether creative make knowledge from a source domain that is largely concrete
problem solving was enhanced when people embodied them. and physical (e.g., temperature) more accessible in the context
Our approach in investigating the power of creative meta- of an abstract target concept (e.g., perceptions of other people;
phors was inspired by recent advances in the understanding of Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). The literal and abstract meanings of
body-mind linkages in the literature on embodied cognition. some metaphors may thus become intertwined to such an
According to the embodied-cognition perspective, abstract con- extent that the metaphors themselves achieve a physical real-
cepts can become closely tied to the concrete bodily experiences ity of their own (Schubert, 2005).
of sensations and movements (Barsalou, 2008; Niedenthal, Prior research on embodiment has focused almost exclu-
Barsalou, Winkielman, Krauth-Gruber, & Ric, 2005). A grow- sively on the kind of embodiment that activates preexisting
ing body of research has supported this view by showing that knowledge structures. For example, the tactile sensation of
people draw on their concrete physical experiences in con- warmth has been shown to activate knowledge about relational
structing social reality. For example, holding a warm bever-
age, as opposed to a cold beverage, increases peoples
Corresponding Author:
perceptions of the warmth of a strangers personality (Wil- Angela K.-y. Leung, School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management
liams & Bargh, 2008) and their closeness with their significant University, Level 4, 90 Stamford Rd., Singapore 178903, Singapore
other (IJzerman & Semin, 2009). Physically moving backward E-mail: angelaleung@smu.edu.sg
2 Leung et al.
closeness (Williams & Bargh, 2008), and making a fist has physical orientations. According to these metaphors, better
been shown to increase mens perceptions of themselves as solutions arise by thinking about a problem on one hand and
assertive (Schubert & Koole, 2009). In the research reported then on the other hand. In our first experiment, we tested
here, we sought to advance the understanding of embodied whether physically embodying the two-hands metaphor by
cognition by investigating for the first time whether embodi- making gestures first with one hand and then with the other
ment can prime not only existing knowledge structures, but hand facilitated the three components (fluency, flexibility, and
also cognitive processes necessary for generating new ideas originality) of divergent thinking.
and knowledge. More specifically, we explored whether
embodying metaphors for creativity can give rise to novel
ideas by facilitating the psychological process of creative Method
problem solving. Forty undergraduate participants (12 females, 28 males) were
Creativity is typically defined as the process of creating asked to take part in two ostensibly unrelated studies simultane-
something both novel and useful (Amabile, 1996). Both con- ously: Participants were told that while they came up with novel
vergent thinking and divergent thinking are important to cre- uses for a university building complex for a study on the genera-
ative problem solving (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971). tion of creative ideas, they would also take part in a public-
Convergent thinking entails the search for the best answer or speaking study that required them to lift one hand and hold their
the most creative solution to a problem (Dewhurst, Thorley, arm outstretched, as a person might do while talking to a group
Hammond, & Ormerod, 2011; Nemeth, 1986; Simonton, from a stage. After viewing an instructional video that described
2003). Divergent thinking entails the generation of many ideas the procedure and body posture, participants stood facing the
about and alternative solutions to a problem (Guilford, 1967). corner of the room, where task instructions were attached either
Divergent thinking involves at least three distinct compo- to the walls on both sides (experimental condition) or only the
nents that are complementary but not highly correlated: flu- wall on the right side (control condition).
ency, flexibility, and originality (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & During the first trial, participants read the question of how
Lee, 2008; Guilford, 1959; Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & the university building complex could be used (the question
Bass, 2010; Torrance, 1966). Fluency is the ability to generate was printed on a piece of paper attached to one or both walls)
a large number of ideas in response to a problem. Fluency is an and verbalized answers while holding their right hand toward
important antecedent to creativity because the more ideas a the wall with the palm facing up and their left hand behind
person generates about a problem, the more likely he or she their back. During the second trial, control participants gener-
will be to arrive at a novel solution for it (Simonton, 1999). ated additional ideas while raising the same hand they had
Flexibility refers to the extent to which generated ideas differ raised during the first trial; participants in the experimental
from each other. Flexibility is indicative of divergent thinking condition, however, switched hands by holding their left hand
if the generated ideas span multiple conceptual categories, toward the wall and their right hand behind their back while
disciplines, or fields of inquiry. Originality is the extent to they generated additional ideas. Notably, participants were not
which an idea is novel in the context of previously known aware that they would have to generate answers to the same
ideas. The originality of ideas can be evaluated either by sub- question on both trials until the second trial began. There was
jective judgment or by objective statistical frequency (Hoce- no time constraint for responding in either trial.
var, 1979). Notably, good performance on both convergent- We audio-recorded participants oral responses and had two
and divergent-thinking tasks demonstrates creative cognition independent raters code them for fluency (number of ideas gen-
because people have to overcome mental fixedness and be erated) and flexibility (number of unique categories reflected by
cognitively flexible in order to excel at such tasks. the ideas, e.g., restaurant, gymnasium; interrater r = .67).
We hypothesized that the embodiment of metaphors for Following Goncalo and Staw (2006), we calculated an objective
creativity would promote creative problem solving. To maxi- originality score for each idea by counting the number of times
mize the robustness and generalizability of our findings, we it had been generated in the sample and subtracting that number
utilized measures of creativity that assessed convergent think- from the total number of participants. We calculated an original-
ing (indicated by the attainment of correct solutions) and ity score for each participant by summing the originality scores
divergent thinking (indicated by fluency, flexibility, and origi- for all of his or her ideas; higher scores indicated a greater num-
nality). We employed different measures of creativity across ber of original ideas.
five studies to ensure not only that any observed effects would
generalize to each component of the creative process, but also
that the results would not be due to artifacts associated with a Results
given measure of creativity. A 2 (condition: experimental, control; between subjects) 2
(Trial: 1, 2; within subjects) mixed-design analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with fluency as the dependent variable showed a
Study 1 main effect of trial, F(1, 38) = 26.17, p < .001, p2 = .41; par-
Across cultures and languages (e.g., English, Korean, Hebrew, ticipants in both conditions generated more ideas on the first
and Chinese), metaphors associate creativity with bilateral trial (M = 11.67, SD = 6.04) than on the second trial (M = 7.20,
Embodied Metaphors and Creative Acts 3
SD = 3.83). As predicted, there was a significant Condition measures individuals ability to analyze relationships among
Trial interaction, F(1, 38) = 5.97, p = .02, p2 = .14; on Trial 2, remote ideas and come up with one correct solution (Dewhurst
a greater number of ideas were generated by participants in the et al., 2011; Subramaniam, Kounios, Parrish, & Jung-Beeman,
experimental condition (M = 8.17, SD = 4.00) than by partici- 2008; Taft & Rossiter, 1966). We predicted that participants
pants in the control condition (M = 5.75, SD = 3.15), t(38) = who completed the RAT while seated outside the boxthat is,
2.02, p = .05, p2 = .10. There was no difference in the number participants who literally embodied the metaphor of thinking
of ideas generated by participants in the two conditions on outside the boxwould be more likely than participants who
Trial 1, t(38) < 1.20. There was no main effect of condition on sat inside the box or who saw no box to overcome cognitive
fluency, F < 1. fixedness and correctly link the clue words to arrive at the cor-
Similar patterns were observed for flexibility and original- rect answers.
ity. There was a main effect of trial on flexibility (Trial 1: M = To rule out potential confounds associated with the experi-
7.03, SD = 2.85; Trial 2: M = 2.78, SD = 1.59), F(1, 38) = ence of being inside the box, after participants had completed
78.42, p = .01, p2 = .67, and a main effect of trial on original- the RAT, we had them respond to four feeling items pertaining
ity (Trial 1: M = 1,036.75, SD = 578.31; Trial 2: M = 673.18, to safety (I felt safe), privacy (I felt that I had privacy),
SD = 381.80), F(1, 38) = 20.70, p = .02, p2 = .35. Of import, confusion (I felt confused), and comfort (I felt comfort-
there were significant Condition Trial interactions for both able), using scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
flexibility, F(1, 38) = 4.28, p = .045, p2 = .10, and originality, agree). In addition, participants completed the 20-item Claus-
F(1, 38) = 6.53, p = .02, p2 = .15; on Trial 2, the ideas of trophobia Scale ( = .86; st, 2007), on which they reported
participants in the experimental condition were characterized the degree of anxiety that they would experience in specific
by greater flexibility (M = 3.08, SD = 1.74) and originality situations, using scales from 1 (none) to 5 (very much).
(M = 768.83, SD = 404.45) than were the ideas of participants
in the control condition (flexibility: M = 2.31, SD = 1.25; orig-
inality: M = 529.68, SD = 302.63). Results
As predicted, participants who completed the RAT while they
were physically outside the box generated more correct
Study 2a answers (M = 6.73, SD = 0.50) than did participants who were
One reason why creativity can be sparked by considering a physically inside the box (M = 5.08, SD = 0.51) and control
problem from different perspectives is that accessing different participants (M = 5.43, SD = 0.35), F(1, 99) = 3.93, p < .05,
alternative solutions helps people overcome cognitive rigidity. p2 = .06. Planned contrasts revealed that the accuracy of par-
This process is well captured by the expression think outside ticipants in the outside-the-box condition was significantly
the box, a platitude often offered to inspire young scientists, higher than that of participants in the other two conditions,
industrial designers, and Hollywood scriptwriters alike. In Stud- t(99) = 2.52, p < .05, p2 = .06. Including feelings of safety,
ies 2a, 2b, and 3, we tested whether enacting this metaphor privacy, confusion, comfort, and claustrophobia as covariates
enhanced creative problem solving. First, in Study 2a, we exam- did not alter the results, F(1, 47) = 8.04, p < .01, p2 = .15, and
ined the effect of embodying the outside-the-box metaphor on the effects of the covariates on accuracy were not significant
creative problem solving in a convergent-thinking task. (F < 3.68). Mean scores on the RAT did not differ between the
inside-the-box and control conditions, a result that suggests
that the difference between the inside-the-box and outside-the-
Method box conditions was due to the creativity-fostering effects of
One hundred two undergraduate students (52 females, 50 thinking outside the box, rather than to creativity-hampering
males) participated in this study in return for $7. Using polyvi- effects of thinking inside the box.
nyl chloride (PVC) pipe and cardboard, we constructed a box
that measured 5 ft by 5 ft and could comfortably seat one indi-
vidual. We placed the box in a laboratory and asked partici- Study 2b
pants, who had been told that the study concerned the effects In Study 2b, we extended Study 2a in two ways. First, we
of different work environments, to complete a 10-item Remote investigated whether physically embodying a box by walking
Associates Test (RAT; M. T. Mednick, Mednick, & Mednick, in a fixed, rectangular path would yield findings consistent
1964) while sitting either inside or outside the box. We also with our results from the inside-the-box condition of Study 2a.
included a control condition in which participants completed Second, whereas we used a measure of convergent thinking to
the task without the box present. assess creativity in Study 2a, we used measures of divergent
On the RAT, participants are presented with three clue words thinking to assess creativity in Study 2b, given that outside-
(e.g., measure, worm, and video) and must think of a the-box thinking is presumably conducive not only to arriving
fourth word (e.g., tape) that relates to each of the three clues. at correct solutions but also to generating many alternative
The RAT is a measure of convergent thinking; specifically, it ideas.
4 Leung et al.
similar to those of physically enacting such metaphors. To .01). However, participants whose avatars walked freely gen-
investigate the soft embodiment of creative metaphors, we erated gift ideas that were more unconventional (e.g., a maga-
conducted Study 3 using Second Life (www.secondlife.com), zine subscription; M = 5.71, SD = 2.63) than were the gift
a popular three-dimensional virtual world. ideas of participants whose avatars walked along a fixed path
(e.g., a CD or DVD; M = 7.00, SD = 2.78), F(1, 71) = 4.17,
p = .045, p2 = .06. This finding suggests that even in the
Method absence of physical movement or changes in the way the body
Seventy-three participants (35 females, 38 males) took part in is situated in relation to the environment, softly embodying
this study in return for approximately $3.80. Participants were metaphors for creativity can also promote creative thinking, at
told that this study concerned perspective taking in virtual least as indexed by originality.
worlds. They were assigned an avatar of their gender and
asked to imagine being that avatar in Second Life. After a prac-
tice trial in which they controlled the avatar to make it walk, Study 4
participants completed a creativity task that required them to We had two goals in Study 4. First, we examined the effect of
generate as many ideas as possible for creative gifts they might embodying another creativity-related metaphor: putting two
give to an acquaintance (Leung & Chiu, 2010). While partici- and two together. Second, we tested whether enacting this
pants generated ideas, they walked the avatar and imagined metaphor facilitated creative problem solving in the form of
themselves as the avatar. The avatar walked either freely or convergent thinking, but not in the form of divergent thinking.
along a fixed, rectangular path; in other words, the environ- Specifically, we hypothesized that embodying the metaphor
mental setup was similar to that used in Study 2b, but situated by putting two objects together would catalyze participants
in a virtual world (see Fig. 1). After virtually walking for ability to synthesize multiple ideas to produce the best
3 min, participants wrote down their gift ideas. Finally, they solutions to problems. This ability is critical for solving
reported how easy it had been for them to control their avatar, convergent-thinking tasks (e.g., the RAT; Dewhurst et al.,
using a scale from 1 (extremely difficult) to 7 (extremely easy). 2011; Taft & Rossiter, 1966), which require people to use con-
We used the same procedure used for responses in the Lego ceptual recombination to recognize seemingly distant relation-
task in Study 2b to calculate a dominance-to-rank ratio for ships between individual elements of a problem in order to
each gift idea. Higher ratios indicated less-original gift ideas approach a solution (Subramaniam et al., 2008). In fact, when
(i.e., gift ideas generated by more participants in the sample). S. A. Mednick (1962) developed the RAT, he theorized that
We also obtained scores for fluency (i.e., number of gift ideas more-creative individuals would excel at the task because they
generated) and flexibility (i.e., number of categories reflected could generate more and broader associative links among the
by the gift ideas; interrater r = .82). presented stimuli (see also Dewhurst et al., 2011; Rossmann &
Fink, 2010). Therefore, it is reasonable to predict that embody-
ing the act of recombination benefits convergent thinking by
Results facilitating the generation of broader associative links among
Participants in the two conditions did not differ in their ratings given stimuli. However, the same embodiment might not ben-
of the ease of controlling their avatars, t(71) < 0.57, and flu- efit divergent thinkingthe capacity to generate multiple
ency and flexibility did not differ between conditions (Fs < divergent ideas.
Fig. 1. Experimental setup for the two conditions of Study 3. The illustration on the left shows a Second Life avatar in the rectangular-walking
condition. The illustration on the right shows a Second Life avatar in the free-walking condition.
6 Leung et al.
ceiling, we hesitate to make strong inferences from the null Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psy-
effects that emerged. Notably, this methodological issue did not chology, 59, 617645.
extend to our measure of originality, which was based on the Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in
statistical infrequency of ideas rather than the number of ideas abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185189.
generated. Second, the effects of embodying the thinking-out- Cheng, C.-Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the
side-the-box metaphor in Studies 2b and 3 might in fact be con- dots within: Creative performance and identity integration. Psy-
sistent with the investigated embodied state, given that this chological Science, 19, 11781184.
metaphor emphasizes breaking conventions and may thereby Cohen, D., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Leung, A. K.-y. (2007). Culture
facilitate the generation of normatively infrequent responses and the structure of personal experience: Insider and outsider
(originality) more than it facilitates the generation of many phenomenologies of the self and social world. In M. P. Zanna
responses (fluency) or the generation of responses that reflect (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp.
different categories (flexibility). 167). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Together, results for both Studies 2b and 3 showed that Cohen, D., & Leung, A. K.-y. (2009). The hard embodiment of cul-
enacting the thinking-outside-the-box metaphor enhanced ture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 12781289.
originality in three divergent-thinking tasks: generating Dewhurst, S. A., Thorley, C., Hammond, E. R., & Ormerod, T. C.
Droodle captions (Study 2b), generating ideas about what (2011). Convergent, but not divergent, thinking predicts suscepti-
Lego assemblages could represent (Study 2b), and generating bility to associative memory illusions. Personality and Individual
gift ideas (Study 3). The two-hands metaphor embodied by Differences, 51, 7376.
participants in Study 1 implicitly suggests that individuals Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and
should overcome cognitive fixedness (facilitating originality), group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
think more (facilitating fluency), and entertain diverse per- Processes, 100, 96109.
spectives (facilitating flexibility); our findings from Study 1 Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.),
confirmed that this embodied state enhanced the three compo- Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 142161). New York, NY:
nents of divergent thinking. Harper.
Our studies provide the first experimental evidence that Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York,
enacting metaphors for creativity that implicitly discourage NY: McGraw-Hill.
cognitive fixedness benefits creativity. Recent research has Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence.
suggested that creative problem solving can also be achieved New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
through focused, hard work and perseverance (Nijstad et al., Hocevar, D. (1979). A comparison of statistical infrequency and sub-
2010). Future research can extend that idea by examining jective judgment as criteria in the measurement of originality.
whether physical acts that entail a guided, focused activity Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 297299.
(e.g., a focused eye gaze) can similarly promote creativity (see IJzerman, H., & Koole, S. L. (2011). From perceptual rags to meta-
Thomas & Lleras, 2009). phoric riches: Bodily, social, and cultural constraints on socio-
Taken together, our findings move research on embodied cognitive metaphors: Comment on Landau, Meier, and Keefer
cognition in a new direction, and their implications extend (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 137, 355361.
beyond the domain of creativity. Embodiment research thus IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. R. (2009). The thermometer of social rela-
far has tended to concentrate on the role of the bodys sensori- tions. Psychological Science, 20, 12141220.
motor system in activating existing repertoires of knowledge Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The
and thereby facilitating the expression of certain thoughts and embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York,
behaviors. Our findings shed new light on this perspective by NY: Basic Books.
demonstrating that embodiment can potentially enlargenot Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-
just activaterepertoires of knowledge by triggering cogni- enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1045
tive processes that are conducive to generating creative solu- 1067.
tions. In other words, body-mind linkages influence not only Leung, A. K.-y., & Chiu, C.-y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea
processes of knowledge activation, but also processes of receptiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-
knowledge generation. Embodying metaphors for creativity ogy, 41, 723741.
appears to help ignite the engine of creativity. Leung, A. K.-y., & Cohen, D. (2007). The soft embodiment of cul-
ture. Psychological Science, 18, 824830.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests McGlone, M. S., & Harding, J. L. (1998). Back (or forward?) to the
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehen-
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article. sion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 24, 12111223.
References Mednick, M. T., Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, E. V. (1964). Incubation
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview of creative performance and specific associative priming. Journal
Press. of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 8488.
8 Leung et al.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Schubert, T. W., & Koole, S. L. (2009). The embodied self: Making
Psychological Review, 69, 220232. a fist enhances mens power-related self-conceptions. Journal of
Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., & Macrae, C. N. (2010). Moving through Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 828834.
time. Psychological Science, 21, 222223. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and on creativity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 2332. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochas-
Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., tic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process per-
& Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and spectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475494.
emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 184211. Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M.
Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Bass, M. (2008). A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive
(2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation affect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 415432.
as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Taft, R., & Rossiter, J. T. (1966). The Remote Associates Test: Diver-
Social Psychology, 21, 3477. gent or convergent thinking? Psychological Reports, 19, 1313
st, L.-G. (2007). The Claustrophobia Scale: A psychometric evalua- 1314.
tion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 10531064. Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2009). Covert shifts of attention func-
Price, R., Lovka, R. A., & Lovka, B. (2002). Droodles: The classic tion as an implicit aid to insight. Cognition, 111, 168174.
collection. Los Angeles, CA: Tallfellow Press. Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Prince-
Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2007). Per- ton, NJ: Personnel Press.
sonal need for structure and creative performance: The mod- Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., Sifonis, C. M., Dodds, R. A., & Saunders,
erating influence of fear of invalidity. Personality and Social K. N. (2002). The role of graded category structure in imaginative
Psychology Bulletin, 33, 855866. thought. Memory & Cognition, 30, 199216.
Rossmann, E., & Fink, A. (2010). Do creative people use shorter Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth
associative pathways? Personality and Individual Differences, promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606607.
49, 891895. Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1984). Affect and cognition: The hard
Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as percep- interface. In C. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions,
tual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- cognitions, and behavior (pp. 73102). Cambridge, England:
chology, 89, 121. Cambridge University Press.