This hypothesis is based on controversial findings, which will be shortly mentioned in the following paragraphs. On the one hand, there is evidence advocating that creative individuals experience less arousal during the inspirational phase, meaning the brainstorming phase; of the creative process (Sternberg, 1999). On the other hand, there is evidence suggesting that creative individuals have a higher basal level of arousal and that during the inspirational phase, the occipitotemporal cortex is more active (Sternberg, 1999; Chrysikou & Thompson-Schill, 2010).
Kris (1952) hypothesized that more creative individuals are more variable on the primary-secondary process cognition continuum (Sternberg, 1999). Primary process cognition describes free-associative states of mind, such as dreaming, whereas secondary process cognition captures a more reality-oriented state of mind (Sternberg, 1999). Kris proposed that medium levels of arousal are ideal for secondary process states. Moreover, he suggests that high and low levels of arousal encourage primary process states (Sternberg, 1999). Due to the curvilinear relationship, it is impossible to conclude whether creativity arises from high- or low-arousal states. However, when considering the self-reports of creative individuals, the evidence points to creativity emerging mostly in low arousal states (Sternberg, 1999). Hull's Behavioural Law (1943) supports this view by proposing that increases in arousal promote stereotypical behavior, whereas low arousal benefits variable behavior. EEG studies also showed that creative individuals experience lower levels of cortical activity in the inspirational phase of the creative process than uncreative people (Sternberg, 1999).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
However, opposing evidence exists as well. Research has found that creative people experience higher basal levels of arousal, such as higher skin conductance and higher scores on tests of anxiety (Sternberg, 1999). In line with this reasoning, the research found that highly creative subjects show less alpha activity during resting eyes-closed basal EEG recordings. Alpha waves are correlated with deep sleep and, therefore, with very relaxed states (Sternberg, 1999). In addition, an fMRI study by Chrysikou and Thompson-Schill (2010) found that during open-ended tasks (generating the uncommon use of an object) the occipitotemporal cortex was more active, than in close-ended tasks (generating the common use of an object) (Chrysikou & Thompson-Schill, 2010). Chrysikou and Thompson-Schill (2010) showed that during close-ended tasks the lateral PFC was activated, however, in open-ended tasks these regions did not show reliable activation. One possible explanation Chrysikou and Thompson-Schill (2010) put forward is that during the open-ended task, different aspects of the given object become important. Due to the nature of the Uncommon Use task, it is unknown to the participant which aspects could be task-relevant. Therefore, heightened activation in the lateral occipitotemporal cortex might demonstrate increased attention to the visual aspects of the given object. These aspects are probably filtered out by the PFC in the close-ended, Common Use task (Chrysikou & Thompson-Schill, 2010). Additionally, the research by Oppezzo and Schwartz (2014) found that walking increased creativity significantly when compared to sitting, which is not in line with the low arousal hypothesis (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014).
The present study hypothesizes that all three types of walking (normal walking, climbing stairs, and fast walking) influence creativity. Nevertheless, it is speculated that they will differ due to the aforementioned research that links arousal levels to creativity. As mentioned before, this paper will solely focus on the comparison between normal walking and climbing stairs. The latter is proposed to increase arousal more than normal walking because it is more physically challenging. No hypothesis was suggested concerning the direction of this effect due to the controversial findings on the effect of arousal on creativity. Moreover, it is hypothesized that people who are on average more active during the week, will be more creative than inactive people in the climbing stairs and fast walking conditions.
Discussion
The present study hypothesized that all three types of walking (normal walking, climbing stairs, and fast walking) influence creativity. Nevertheless, it was speculated that they will differ due to the previous research suggesting a link between arousal levels and creativity (Sternberg, 1999). This paper solely focused on the comparison between normal walking and climbing stairs. The latter was proposed to increase arousal more than normal walking because it is more physically challenging. No hypothesis was suggested concerning the direction of this effect due to the controversial findings on the effect of arousal on creativity. The significant negative correlation between resting heart rate and the GLTEQ score (r = -.233; p = .048) confirms that both measure the same construct, namely physical fitness. Furthermore, a significant effect of fast walking compared to stair-climbing on creativity was found (p = .04). After walking as fast as possible for eight minutes, participants were significantly more creative compared to their performance post-stair-climbing. The results further suggest that climbing stairs have overall the same effects on creativity, in terms of divergent thinking, as normal walking (p = 1,00). Due to our findings, two hypotheses can be made derived. Firstly, there might be a common mechanism underlying the equal effects of stair-climbing and normal walking on creativity. Secondly, there must be a difference between the stair-climbing and the fast-walking mechanism which leads to a significant improvement in creativity after fast walking. Here, the focus will lie on explaining the equal effects of stair-climbing and normal walking on creativity.
An increase in cortical alpha activity might be the mechanism that both types of walking engage, which leads to their comparable effects on divergent thinking. Exercise has been previously shown to increase alpha activity during and immediately post-exercise (Crabbe & Dishman, 2004). Fink, Grabner, et al. (2009), found that for an Alternate Uses task (AUT), there were strong alpha event-related synchronizations (ERS) in frontal regions (Dietrich & Kanso, 2010). Jaušovec (2000), also found that highly creative participants showed higher alpha power in frontal areas during a divergent thinking task (Dietrich & Kanso, 2010). Nevertheless, there also have been opposing findings ((Dietrich & Kanso, 2010), and, therefore, it should be further investigated whether the cortical activity is, in fact, the common mechanism underlying the performance of the GAU.
Oppezzo and Schwartz (2014) stated that it was unknown whether more aerobic walking would demand more cognitive control and, therefore, would impair creative performance (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014). Considering our findings, it can be concluded that even more demanding forms of walking, such as climbing stairs, do not impair creativity. Chrysikou and Thompson-Schill (2010) give a possible explanation for this finding. In their study, the researchers found that during an Uncommon Use task, such as the GAU, the prefrontal cortex (PFC) was not significantly involved, whereas the occipitotemporal cortex showed increased activation (Chrysikou & Thompson-Schill, 2010). The conclusion was that divergent thinking tasks do not demand strong cognitive control, especially because free ideation and flow of thought are necessary to be creative (Chrysikou & Thompson-Schill, 2010).
Nevertheless, there was a significant difference between the climbing stairs condition and the fast walking condition (p = .04). Due to the fact that fast walking leads to the highest divergent thinking scores, it may even be the case that certain types of aerobic exercise enhance creativity more than others. Future research should investigate the comparison between types of aerobic exercise and more skill-based exercise to discern possible mechanisms underlying the improvements in divergent thinking.
In their paper, Oppezzo and Schwartz (2014) question whether it is the physical aspect of walking that enhances creativity, or rather the cognitive aspect, namely the thought liberation arising from a comfortable task, which functions as a creativity booster (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014). They hypothesize that the performance of pleasant tasks might facilitate divergent thought, which would be in line with the low arousal theory of creativity. However, the presented results annul this explanation because both the uncomfortable, high-arousal stair-climbing condition, as well as the comfortable, lower arousal normal walking condition, had remarkably similar effects on divergent thinking. It has been suggested that walking might lower the threshold of excitation in associative memory and, thereby, make less active ideas more accessible (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014). As Chrysikou and Thompson-Schill (2010) suggested, divergent thinking requires a free flow of ideas and, therefore, low cognitive control (Chrysikou & Thompson-Schill, 2010). By lowering the threshold at which ideas and memories get activated, physical activity, such as walking or climbing stairs, may enhance divergent thought (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014). Returning to the present study, these findings might explain why the more exhausting stair-climbing condition did not impair participants’ performance on the GAU.
Another aspect that future research should further investigate is whether social context matters. In our research, as well as in the research realized by Oppezzo and Schwartz (2014) “participants were encouraged to talk aloud to a friendly researcher” (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014). Future research should examine whether equivalent effects are observed when participants are either not being encouraged to talk, or when participants complete divergent thinking tasks companionless (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014).
Limitations. Considering the switch in location (the University of Almería to the University of Maastricht) it was not possible to realize the study under exactly identical conditions. This could pose a threat to internal validity, however, simultaneously it might be advantageous for external validity. Similarly, the participants were highly culturally diverse, which again allows for high external validity, but, nevertheless, may as well restrict internal validity. A literature review by Westwood and Low (2003) concludes that culture has “an impact on the perception and interpretation of creative and innovation processes”. Nevertheless, it remains unknown what the true effects are (Westwood & Low, 2003). Therefore, the cultural diversity of this sample might have impacted their creativity score.
Furthermore, the subjects had the option to complete the GAU either in Spanish, English, German, or Greek. For some participants, their mother tongue was not included which may have generated a language barrier. Consequently, their abilities to express elaborate responses may have been confined.
Nevertheless, these between-subjects deviations should not have impacted the within-subjects effect of activity condition on creativity. However, they still might have been confounding for the between-subjects effects of resting heart rate, BMI, and leisure activity on creativity.
In a few cases, individual responses are missing due to audio malfunctioning or slurs in speech. This may have slightly influenced the creativity scores of some participants. These missing responses would likely not change the direction of the presented results.
Another possible limitation of this study might arise as the result of divergent conceptualizations of fast and comfortable walking. No speed limitations were set, therefore, the average heart rate during the activity would have been an important and useful measure of physical exertion. Furthermore, future studies should include a measure of perceived physical exertion in order to have a superior understanding of which condition was the most straining one. In addition, future research should attempt to incorporate devices that measure the speed of walking or the number of steps taken, such as accelerometers. Due to financial and temporal restrictions, this has not been possible in this study.
Lastly, the distribution of subjects’ scores on the GLTEQ may not have been optimal for a dichotomization because there was not a significant difference between the two groups (more and less active). Future studies might consider a quasi-experimental design to test for differences in creativity performance post-exercise.
Conclusion
With serious problems, such as climate change, impending creative and innovative solutions are needed now more than ever. Therefore, research investigating ways of enhancing creative thought is fundamental. Research has shown that even eight minutes of walking is enough to enhance creativity (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014). Since no equipment is necessary it can be done in any situation and it can be implemented easily in everyday life.
As a result of the finding that stair-climbing did not impair creativity, short exercise breaks in the workplace should be implemented more often. These short breaks would enhance employees’ physical activity and well-being, as well as cognitive functions, such as memory, psychological states, and creativity and, consequently, workplace success and performance (Lee et al., 2012, Steinberg et al., 1997, Chang, Pan, Chen, Tsai & Huang, 2012, Winett & Carpinelli, 2001, Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014, Ben-Ner, Hamann, Koepp, Manohar & Levine, 2014). Stair-climbing might be a valuable alternative to simply walking. Although there was no significant difference in regard to their influence on creativity, stair-climbing is more effective for burning calories than normal walking.
The presented results show that both the uncomfortable, high-arousal stair-climbing condition, as well as the comfortable, lower arousal normal walking condition, have remarkably similar effects on divergent thinking. Considering our findings, it can be concluded that even more demanding forms of walking, such as climbing stairs, do not impair creativity. Therefore, creativity does not necessarily arise solely in low-arousal, comfortable states. Due to our findings, it could be hypothesized that there is a common mechanism underlying the similar effects of stair-climbing and normal walking on creativity. Future research should investigate the comparison between types of aerobic exercise and more skill-based exercise to discern possible mechanisms underlying the improvements in divergent thinking. Furthermore, research should examine whether equivalent effects are observed when participants are either not being encouraged to talk, or when participants complete divergent thinking tasks companionless.
Stuck on your essay?
