4.8 Article

Naming unrelated words predicts creativity

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2022340118

关键词

creativity; divergent thinking; semantic distance; computational scoring

资金

  1. le Fonds de recherche du Quebec-Sante
  2. Canada First Research Excellence Fund [3c-KM10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the relationship between semantic distance and creativity, finding that greater semantic distances are associated with higher creativity scores. The method of naming unrelated words as a way to measure divergent thinking can serve as a brief, reliable, and objective tool for assessing creativity.
Several theories posit that creative people are able to generate more divergent ideas. If this is correct, simply naming unrelated words and then measuring the semantic distance between them could serve as an objective measure of divergent thinking. To test this hypothesis, we asked 8,914 participants to name 10 words that are as different from each other as possible. A computational algorithm then estimated the average semantic distance between the words; related words (e.g., cat and dog) have shorter distances than unrelated ones (e.g., cat and thimble). We predicted that people producing greater semantic distances would also score higher on traditional creativity measures. In Study 1, we found moderate to strong correlations between semantic distance and two widely used creativity measures (the Alternative Uses Task and the Bridge-the-Associative-Gap Task). In Study 2, with participants from 98 countries, semantic distances varied only slightly by basic demographic variables. There was also a positive correlation between semantic distance and performance on a range of problems known to predict creativity. Overall, semantic distance correlated at least as strongly with established creativity measures as those measures did with each other. Naming unrelated words in what we call the Divergent Association Task can thus serve as a brief, reliable, and objective measure of divergent thinking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据