Behavioral Indices of Effort Discounting are Related to Creative Accomplishment and Problem-Solving and to Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on literature linking bipolar disorder to both creativity and heightened motivation, our aim was to examine whether heightened motivation might contribute to creativity in those with and without bipolar disorder. To examine this, we recruited persons diagnosed with bipolar disorder (n = 49), and persons with no diagnosis of bipolar disorder (n = 37), with over-sampling of those from creative occupations. We gathered measures of lifetime creative accomplishment (Creative Accomplishment Questionnaire), willingness to persist as a creativity task became increasingly difficult (the Compound Remote Associates task) divergent thinking (Unusual Uses Test), self-rated high ambitions (The Willingly Approached Set of Statistically Unlikely Pursuits scale)) and a behavioral measure of willingness to exert physical effort for reward (the Effort Discounting Task). In multiple linear regression models controlling for age and examining the unique effects of the motivation variables, two behavioral indicators from the Effort Discounting task related to creativity. That is, insensitivity to the level of effort required related to higher lifetime creative accomplishment. Insensitivity to the level of reward that could be obtained correlated with more willingness to persist on the creativity task and was higher in the bipolar group than the control comparison group. In sum, effort-based decision-making was related to bipolar disorder, to lifetime creative accomplishment, and to performance on a difficult creativity task. As such, this work contributes to a growing body of research on the role of motivation in creativity. Limitations are discussed. Author note: As of submission to PsyArXiv (11/1/22), the present manuscript has been submitted for publication but has not yet been accepted or modified through the publication process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".