Do field-dependent individuals tend to have lower creativity than field-independent ones? The role of informational cues in electronic brainstorming

References

• Agnoli, S., Corazza, G. E., & Runco, M. A. (2016). Estimating creativity with a multiple-measurement approach within scientific and artistic domains. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2004). Examining the effects of text-only and text-and-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent and field-independent learners during problem-solving with modeling software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504715
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2013). Using educational data mining methods to assess field-dependent and field-independent learners’ complex problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 521–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9298-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahli, B. (2013). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects on group meeting outcomes. Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(1), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v29i1.7567
   Google Scholar
• Bai, X. J., Gong, Y. B., Hu, W. P., Han, Q., & Yao, H. J. (2014). The inhibitory mechanism of individuals with different scientific creativity. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 12(2), 151–155. https://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/default_result.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Small group brainstorming and idea quality: Is electronic brainstorming the most effective approach? Small Group Research, 32(2), 158–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, J. D., Peterson, D. R., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Day, E. A., Hougen, D. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Thinking about applications: Effects on mental models and creative problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2011). Category assignment and relatedness in the group ideation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1070–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2016). The role of time and category relatedness in electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 47(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416642296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouchard, T. J., & Hare, M. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, S. C., Tang, Y. C., & Liu, Y. J. (2016). Beyond objective knowledge: The moderating role of field dependence–independence cognition in financial decision making. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(3), 519–527. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.3.519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coursey, L. E., Williams, B. C., Kenworthy, J. B., Paulus, P. B., & Doboli, S. (2018). Divergent and convergent group creativity in an asynchronous online environment. The Journal of Creative Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.363
   Google Scholar
• Dennis, A. R., & Reinicke, B. A. (2004). Beta versus VHS and the acceptance of electronic brainstorming technology. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1549–1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deuja, A., Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., & Korde, R. M. (2014). Taking a broad perspective before brainstorming. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(3), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dostál, D., Plháková, A., & Záškodná, T. (2017). Domain-specific creativity in relation to the level of empathy and systemizing. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 722–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, C., Richardson, J. T., & Waring, M. (2013). Field independence: Reviewing the evidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/256377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu, C. H., Song, J. J., Hao, E. H., Zhou, Z. K., Gao, C., & Hu, B. Y. (2018). Effects of real-world and virtual openness and Internet communication on social creativity: A serial mediation analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guegan, J., Segonds, F., Barre, J., Maranzana, N., Mantelet, F., & Buisine, S. (2017). Social identity cues to improve creativity and identification in face-to-face and virtual groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 77(December), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.043
   Google Scholar
• Hao, X. (2014). Relationship between cognitive styles and creative thinking [Unpublished master's thesis]. Southwest University.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, J. H., III, & Gibson, C. (2017). Gender differences in the measurement of creative problem-solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.92
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington, D. M., & Chin-Newman, C. S. (2017). Conscious motivations of adolescent visual artists and creative writers: Similarities and differences. Creativity Research Journal, 29(4), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1378270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (2010). Creative thinking ability: Domain generality and specificity. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Quarterly, 14, 313–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/248893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julmi, C., & Scherm, E. (2015). The domain-specificity of creativity: Insights from new phenomenology. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1030310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 14(2), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554310
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, D. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000042960.38411.52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidron, R., Kaganovskiy, L., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2018). Empathizing-systemizing cognitive styles: Effects of sex and academic degree. PLoS One, 13(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korde, R., & Paulus, P. B. (2017). Alternating individual and group idea generation: Finding the elusive synergy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, K. J., Heuett, K. B., & Reno, K. M. (2017). Re-operationalizing established groups in brainstorming: Validating Osborn’s claims. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lü, X., Liu, J. Y., Wei, L. Q., & Zhang, X. M. (2019). The effects of field dependent-independent cognitive style and abrupt rotation of the reference frame on multiple object tracking. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(2), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00024
   Google Scholar
• Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Métayer, N., & Le Hénaff, B. (2015). The eyes of creativity: Impact of social comparison and individual creativity on performance and attention to others’ ideas during electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, A. L. (2007). Creativity and cognitive style: The relationship between field-dependence-independence, expected evaluation, and creative performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(4), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.4.243
   Google Scholar
• Miyake, A., Witzki, A. H., & Emerson, M. J. (2001). Field dependence–independence from a working memory perspective: A dual-task investigation of the hidden figures test. Memory (Hove, England), 9(4–6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. Scribner.
   Google Scholar
• Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x
   Google Scholar
• Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulus, P. B., Kohn, N. W., Arditti, L. E., & Korde, R. M. (2013). Understanding the group size effect in electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 44(3), 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413479674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, D. R., Barrett, J. D., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Hougen, D. F., Day, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Teaching people to manage constraints: Effects on creative problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian, M., & Plucker, J. A. (2018). Looking for renaissance people: Examining domain specificity-generality of creativity using item response theory models. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1488348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (2013). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behavior. David Fulton Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2010). Do tests of divergent thinking have an experiential bias? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(3), 144–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Song, H. Y., Xie, S. J., & Zhang, H. C. (1988). Compilation and revision of cognitive pattern graph test. Beijing Normal University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steidle, A., & Werth, L. (2013). Freedom from constraints: Darkness and dim illumination promote creativity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35(5), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.003
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2017). Whence creativity? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 289–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1159/000277029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual: Verbal tests, forms a and b: Figural tests, forms a and b. Personal Press, Incorporated.
   Google Scholar
• Tu, C. P., & Fan, F. M. (2015). Verification and preliminary application of Chinese version of Kaufman domains of creativity scale. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 13(6), 811–816. http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CJFQ
   Google Scholar
• Walter, E., & Dassonville, P. (2011). Activation in a frontoparietal cortical network underlies individual differences in the performance of an embedded figures task. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e20742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y. Z., & Ou, Y. L. (2004). The influence of different cognition styles of university students to figure reasoning level and concurrently discusses the function of personality in the cognitive process. Journal of Psychological Science, 27(2), 389–391. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2004.02.041
   Google Scholar
• Wang, H. L., & Zhou, Y. L. (2006). A comparative study between urban and rural areas on the relations between field cognitive styles and creativity of high school students. Journal of Psychological Science, 29(1), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2006.01.029
   Google Scholar
• Ward, W. C. (1969). Creativity and environmental cues in nursery school children. Developmental Psychology, 1(5), 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027977
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, T. B., & Kennedy, E. S. (2017). Creativity research: More studies, greater sophistication and the importance of “Big” questions. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 285–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, F., Mason-Apps, E., Hoskins, S., Azmi, Z., & Boyce, J. (2018). The role of implicit theories, age, and gender in the creative performance of children and adults. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 661–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.4.661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Oltman, P. K., Goodenough, D. R., Friedman, F., Owen, D. R., & Raskin, E. (1977). Role of the field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles in academic evolution: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.3.197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wo, J. Z., Wen, L., & Zhou, S. X. (2004). The advance of cognitive style theory. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2(4), 597–602. https://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/default_result.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Yagolkovskiy, S. R. (2016). Stimulation of individual creativity in electronic brainstorming: Cognitive and social aspects. Social Behavior & Personality an International Journal, 44(5), 761–766. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.5.761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, X. L., Liu, L., Li, Q., & Wan, M. N. (2012). The entitativity of social group: Retrospect and prospect. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(8), 1314–1321. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01314
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, X. Q., Liu, J. P., & Chen, M. R. (2010). The relationship between cognitive style and implicit/explicit memory. Journal of Psychological Science, 33(1), 138–140. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1142.2010.40521
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, Q. Q., & Li, H. (2003). Comparison between face-to-face and computer-mediated groups on decision-making in idea-generation task. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(4), 492–498. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022289509702
   Google Scholar