Children with better selective attention were more flexible (used more different conceptual categories) in the Alternative Uses Task¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Selective attention showed a significant main effect on flexibility, with no effect of stimulus condition and no interaction. → van Dijk 2020

Evidence¶

van Dijk 2020¶

van Dijk, M., Blom, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2020). The Influence of Situational Cues on Children’s Creativity in an Alternative Uses Task and the Moderating Effect of Selective Attention. Journal of Intelligence, 8(4), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8040037

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

ANOVA on the decorrelated flexibility measure (fluency partialled out) in the same experiment. The "significant main effect for selective attention" had η2 = 0.12; condition and interaction were not significant.

"This analysis yielded similar results as the previous ANOVA: a significant main effect for selective attention, F(1, 62) = 8.55, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.12, no main effect for condition, F(1, 62) = 0.08, p = 0.77, and no interaction effect, F(1, 62) = 1.45, p = 0.22."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Fluency in the Alternative Uses Task was unaffected by stimulus condition and unrelated to selective attention
• Selective attention moderated the effect of stimulus condition on children’s originality: better selective attention favoured the low stimulus environment, weaker selective attention the high stimulus environment
• Children produced more original alternative uses (net of fluency and flexibility) in a low stimulus environment than in a high stimulus environment — related
• The multivariate effect of stimulus condition and selective attention on the combined creativity measures showed a significant condition × selective attention interaction — related