4.5 Article

Forward Flow: A New Measure to Quantify Free Thought an Predict Creativity

期刊

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 539-554

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/amp0000391

关键词

free thought; default network; methodology; creativity; mind wandering

资金

  1. Imagination Institute via the John Templeton Foundation [RFP-15-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When the human mind is free to roam, its subjective experience is characterized by a continuously evolving stream of thought. Although there is a technique that captures people's streams of free thought-free association-its utility for scientific research is undermined by two open questions: (a) How can streams of thought be quantified? (b) Do such streams predict psychological phenomena? We resolve the first issue-quantification-by presenting a new metric, forward flow, that uses latent semantic analysis to capture the semantic evolution of thoughts over time (i.e., how much present thoughts diverge from past thoughts). We resolve the second issue-prediction-by examining whether forward flow predicts creativity in the lab and the real world. Our studies reveal that forward flow predicts creativity in college students (Study 1) and a representative sample of Americans (Study 2). even when controlling for intelligence. Studies also reveal that membership in real-world creative groups-performance majors (Study 3). professional actors (Study 4) and entrepreneurs (Study 5)-is predicted by forward flow, even when controlling for performance on divergent thinking tasks. Study 6 reveals that forward flow in celebrities' social media posts (i.e., on Twitter) predicts their creative achievement. In addition to creativity, forward flow may also help predict mental illness, emotional experience, leadership ability, adaptability, neural dynamics, group productivity, and cultural success. We present open-access online tools for assessing and visualizing forward flow for both illustrative and large-scale data analytic purposes.

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

4.5
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