Creativity and Memory

Effects of an Episodic Specificity Induction on Divergent Thinking

According to Madore et al. (2015), people create extra sequential specifics while visualizing upcoming occurrences and resolving means-end issues after getting an episodic specificity induction – short instruction in recapping specifics of a former experience. This is different compared to after getting a control inducement that was never centered on episodic recovery. The authors demonstrate how an episodic specific inducement improves diverse creativity in the first instance. In Study 1, respondents showed a preferential uplift on an advanced cognitive assignment involving unexpected usage of familiar objects upon a specific induction compared to a control induction (Madore et al., 2015). However, effectiveness on an object affiliation assignment is believed to underlie lean disparate impacts (Kenett, 2019). In Study 2, researchers used a separate control inducement to reproduce the specific induction impact on cognitive processing (Madore et al., 2015). They discovered all individuals behaved correspondingly on a convergent-thinking activity following the two inductions. The above studies offer new indications that episodic memory plays a role in disparate innovative thinking.

Critique

Under this study’s analysis, I focus on assessing the importance of specificity in prioritizing innovative thinking processes. The quirky character of the established methodology methods and the language employed to allude towards the concern measurements are the roots of such difficulties(Kenett, 2019). Such discrepancies may cause misunderstanding or the propagation of incorrect beliefs. My goal on the remark is to raise such considerations such that future research built on this research will be aware of them. Distinctions in inventiveness are thought to come through diverse methods whereby recorded thoughts are accessible and related alongside another across lengthy conceptual memory systems (Gabora, 2019). These systems have already been explored concerning episodic memory activities, even if clear and specific preparations on how the systems which underpin thinking ability have been linked to some elements of fiction seem to be relatively new. The notion that unrestricted ephemeral reasoning is related to creative processes has been illustrated in one of the first experiments of memory formation. As a result, the unique discovery of the discriminating influence of generating sequential retrieval methods on idea creation comes at an appropriate period (Benedek et al., 2017). What must be determined is what components of inventiveness impact the ephemeral inducement because it is not clarified in the given study.

The primary source of worry is the unconventional grading framework for the Alternate Uses Task, in which respondents invent very many uses for everyday items (Madore et al., 2015). The Alternative Uses Task is commonly used to generate these actions: fluidity, originality, adaptability, plus elaboration (Ahrens & Ferry, 2018). If any get evaluated, it is determined by the research’s objectives or the type of AUT used. Suitability provides an admission criterion for establishing a user’s validity in the numerous investigations which have employed the AUT (Webb et al., 2019).  As a result, improper usage should never be investigated while developing the AUT metrics. The approach deviates significantly beyond the norm since the study considers all applications when calculating specific metrics. Following other studies which utilized a related and not identical process, suitable applications earned a higher rating while improper applications earned a lesser rating. Just one AUT metric with significant results throughout all these studies due to the inducement method has been dubbed “components of suitability” and “relevance.”

The possibility for significant ambiguity arises since the “groups of suitability” score represents the number of suitable usage classifications, which correlates to the normal AUT “adaptability” assessment. The same may be said for “suitability,” representing permitted application frequency and connects to the conventional AUT “competency” metric (Webb et al., 2019). The writers utilize a distinct definition of adaptability and fluidity and incorrect applications. There are absolutely no arguments advanced to justify these deviations from standard protocol, neither are they being openly recognized in the report. It should be noted that the writers additionally evaluated the level of general inventiveness related to the developed applications. Similarly, the AUT “inventiveness” metric never was mentioned; instead, a comparable “creative thinking” metric was produced using a different grading system that indicates “how unique or uncommon every application seemed” (Madore et al., 2015).  In all studies, episodic-specificity induction had no substantial effect on this or the rumination assessment.

In considerations of lateral thinking, the main point would be episodic-specificity inducement has a significant influence upon fluidity and adaptability but never upon uniqueness and explication. Employing standardized and unambiguous vocabulary helps relate fascinating new results to the current information (Greenland, 2017). For example, episodic-based techniques seem prevalent during the initial stages of concept production and are connected to the development of previously recognized hence wholly plagiarized. The initiation of episodic distinctiveness is associated with an increased amount of created elements in human memory. The AUT embellishment rating is favorably connected with the degree of inner information provided in episodic simulations of either previous or previous, or upcoming occurrences. It might be interesting to investigate how distinct aspects of episodic memory interact with certain parts of inventiveness. Divergent thinking tests, psychology assessments, personality and interest assessments, biography surveys, social submissions, educational nominations, supervisory evaluations, judgements of outputs, brilliance, and creative pursuits and successes measure originality (Kenett, 2019). Most studies evaluating creativity have used a quantitative method, with divergent thinking assessments being the only common form. Divergent thinking symbolizes a person’s capability to innovate and the capability for humans to generate new solutions to current challenges.

A subject matter as important as the research of inventiveness must become less of a specialty field in psychological science. Still,  more scientists around the globe engage their knowledge and experience, effort, and resourcefulness to investigate the peculiarly rich and focal aspect of human living (Kenett, 2019). In a broader sense, the influence of episodic uniqueness on activities that engage creative processes goes past divergent thinking. In conjunction with the impacts of episodic specificity inducement on visualizing forthcoming events, it enhances the variety of related stages that participants create while addressing means-end issues involving imaginary relational contexts. The given study offers the necessary push enabling this development to occur. However, it is critical to retain accuracy and precision at the conceptualization stage since it assists in the amount toward which results dependent on episodic memory techniques will be appropriately incorporated into the more significant research on originality (Benedek et al., 2017). The upcoming study could employ specificity induction to determine the relevance of episodic systems to the execution of additional cognitive activities that are not typically considered sequential cognitive tests but depend on productive applications of episodic recollection.

Conclusion

Divergent thinking is essential in creativity and innovation and can be influenced by feelings. It will be beneficial to investigate the psychological process underlying it. It assists people in being focused on whatever they are focusing on while also allowing them to break out from the constraints of the defined structure to avoid becoming caught in a single mentality. Most of the studies have been conducted with individuals participating in the study. While it is trustworthy since actual people are engaged, numerous uncontrolled things may occur throughout the study. It requires patience, and it necessitates a large amount of physical effort (Webb et al., 2019). As a result, it is critical to computerize the divergent thinking assessment and the test evaluation.

References

Ahrens, T., & Ferry, L. (2018). Institutional entrepreneurship, practice memory, and cultural memory: Choice and creativity in the pursuit of endogenous change of local authority budgeting. Management Accounting Research, 38, 12–21.

Benedek, M., Kenett, Y. N., Umdasch, K., Anaki, D., Faust, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2017). How semantic memory structure and intelligence contribute to creative thought: A network science approach. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(2), 158–183.

Gabora, L. (2019). Creativity: Linchpin in the quest for a viable theory of cultural evolution. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 77–83.

Greenland, S. (2017). Invited commentary: The need for cognitive science in methodology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186(6), 639–645.

Madore, K., Addis, D., & Schacter, D. (2015). Creativity and Memory. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1461-1468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615591863

Kenett, Y. N. (2019). What can quantitative measures of semantic distance tell us about creativity? Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 11–16.

Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., & Cropper, S. J. (2019). Individual differences in insight: An alternative (uses) task.