↓ Skip to main content

Zooming into creativity: individual differences in attentional global-local biases are linked to creative thinking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Zooming into creativity: individual differences in attentional global-local biases are linked to creative thinking
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01647
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon Zmigrod, Leor Zmigrod, Bernhard Hommel

Abstract

While recent studies have investigated how processes underlying human creativity are affected by particular visual-attentional states, we tested the impact of more stable attention-related preferences. These were assessed by means of Navon's global-local task, in which participants respond to the global or local features of large letters constructed from smaller letters. Three standard measures were derived from this task: the sizes of the global precedence effect, the global interference effect (i.e., the impact of incongruent letters at the global level on local processing), and the local interference effect (i.e., the impact of incongruent letters at the local level on global processing). These measures were correlated with performance in a convergent-thinking creativity task (the Remote Associates Task), a divergent-thinking creativity task (the Alternate Uses Task), and a measure of fluid intelligence (Raven's matrices). Flexibility in divergent thinking was predicted by the local interference effect while convergent thinking was predicted by intelligence only. We conclude that a stronger attentional bias to visual information about the "bigger picture" promotes cognitive flexibility in searching for multiple solutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 109 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 24 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 47%
Neuroscience 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 28 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,827,682
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,101
of 29,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,512
of 284,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#314
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.