journal article
LitStream Collection
Home
Lopez-Persem, Alizée; Moreno-Rodriguez, Sarah; Ovando-Tellez, Marcela; Bieth, Théophile; Guiet, Stella; Brochard, Jules; Volle, Emmanuelle
doi: 10.1037/amp0001165pmid: 37578760
What drives us to search for creative ideas, and why does it feel good to find one? While previous studies demonstrated the positive influence of motivation on creative abilities, how reward and subjective values play a role in creativity remains unknown. This study proposes to characterize the role of individual preferences (how people value ideas) in creative ideation via behavioral experiments and computational modeling. Using the Free Generation of Associates Task coupled with rating tasks, we demonstrate the involvement of valuation processes during idea generation: Preferred ideas are provided faster. We found that valuation depends on the adequacy and originality of ideas and guides response selection and creativity. Finally, our computational model correctly predicts the speed and quality of human creative responses, as well as interindividual differences in creative abilities. Altogether, this model introduces the mechanistic role of valuation in creativity. It paves the way for a neurocomputational account of creativity mechanisms.
Schick, Melissa R.; McClure, Erin A.; Tomko, Rachel L.
doi: 10.1037/amp0001214pmid: 37616074
Peer review represents the foundation and gatekeeper to scientific dissemination, making it among the most important points to improve the representation of members of diverse gender, racial/ethnic, and other sociodemographic groups. The American Psychological Association (APA) highlights equity, diversity, and inclusion among its guiding principles. APA journals publish a large volume of cutting-edge psychological research (processing 20,000+ submissions per year) and reach a wide audience and have the unique opportunity to contribute to APA’s mission by disseminating data on the diversity of those involved in the production of psychological science. In this commentary, we highlight recommendations for actionable steps to promote greater equity in the peer review process. While our recommendations are not exhaustive, we hope that they are steps in the right direction and will contribute to conversations that have already begun regarding actions to address underrepresentation in the scientific process.