4.1 Article

Divergent Thinking Influences the Perception of Ambiguous Visual Illusions

Journal

PERCEPTION
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 418-437

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/03010066211000192

Keywords

bistable; ambiguous figures; creativity; divergent thinking; industriousness; personality; perception; Alternate Uses Task; Big 5; Necker cube

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that there are differences in the perceptual processing of creative individuals, with individuals high in creativity/divergent thinking showing higher switching rates in specific visual illusion processing.
This study investigated the relationships between personality and creativity in the perception of two different ambiguous visual illusions. Previous research has suggested that Industriousness and Openness/Intellect (as measured by the Big Five Aspects Scale) are both associated with individual differences in perceptual switching rates for binocular rivalry stimuli. Here, we examined whether these relationships generalise to the Necker Cube and the Spinning Dancer illusions. In the experimental phase of this study, participants viewed these ambiguous figures under both static and dynamic, as well as free-view and fixation, conditions. As predicted, perceptual switching rates were higher: (a) for the static Necker Cube than the Spinning Dancer, and (b) in free-view compared with fixation conditions. In the second phase of the study, personality type and divergent thinking were measured using the Big Five Aspects Scale and the Alternate Uses Task, respectively. Higher creativity/divergent thinking (as measured by the Alternate Uses Task) was found to predict greater switching rates for the static Necker Cube (but not the Spinning Dancer) under both free-view and fixation conditions. These findings suggest that there are differences in the perceptual processing of creative individuals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available