Do you believe <scp>Red Bull</scp> gives wings? When implicit theories of creativity impair creative performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everyone seems to have something to say about creativity, thus participating in the reproduction of persistent myths about creativity that may influence creative behaviour. This research explores the influence of Laypeople's Implicit Theories of Creativity (LIToCs) regarding the drivers of creativity on creative performance, to ascertain whether having strong convictions about the drivers of creativity either enhances or hinders creative productivity when these convictions align with the actual methods of stimulating creativity. An experiment randomly involved 69 subjects who were invited to drink the exact same fruit juice before performing a creative task. In one condition, they were told this was indeed juice; in the other condition, they were told that it was mixed with Red Bull. Analyses showed an interaction effect with the subjects' LIToC, such that among subjects displaying strong LIToC, individual creative performance was lower when they perceived the conditions to stimulate creativity were activated, than otherwise. These results suggest that having strong beliefs in the effects of some creativity drivers might then trigger a complacent attitude and reduce the invested effort in generating creative ideas. This research contributes to rethinking how we use specific drivers to stimulate creativity, as strong LIToCs about those drivers may have a counterproductive effect on creative performance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it