127 97 39 127 149 * Friedman Fishbach Förster Werth 2003 the scope of perceptual attention the average saccade amplitude, ASA ASA ASA CPAI-2 ASA ASA t-test ASA ASA ASA Rhodes 1961 P person product press process P *
128 Amabile 1987 120 brilliance 89 30 283 novel appropriate Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992 Gardner 2000 Lubart, 1994 Santanen, Briggs, & de Vreede, 2004 91 92 755 Ekvall 1996 Alencar Bruno-Faria 1997 Amabile 1997 91 91 1. Wallas 1926
129 1 2 3 insight 4 2. Guilford 1988 fluency flexibility originality elaboration 3. Mednick 1962 1 Mednick
130 1 Table Mednick, 1962: p. 233 Mednick 1962 Remote Associates Test, RAT same head tennis match Mednick Spearman-Brown.92.91 93 Mednick 1962 Chinese Remote Association Test, CRAT 94 96 92 Guilford 1950 APA Hocevar Bachelor 1989 tests of divergent thinking attitude and interest inventories personality inventories biographical inventories rating by teacher, peer and supervisors judgments of product eminence self-reported creative activities and achievements Rhodes 1961 4P
131 87 Guilford 1988 95 94 95 Metcalfe, 1986 Mumford & Whetzel, 1996 Duncker 94 94 rule discovery task 2 4 6 CRAT 93 94 96 92 CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT Chinese personality Assessment Inventory, CPAI Williams 1980 95
132 94 CQ 96 Cheung et al. 1996 CPAI CPAI-2 28 12 novelty diversity divergent thinking 93 CPAI -2 CRAT CPAI-2 eye movement monitoring Duchowski, 2002 reading scene Perception visual search natural tasks auditory language processing
133 40 60 Martindale 1981, 1995 Mednick 1962 the scope of conceptual attention attentional selection of internal conceptual representations table chair, cloth leg, fable Friedman Fishbach Förster Werth 2003 Martindale 1981, 1995 attentional priming hypothesis situational factors the scope of perceptual attention Friedman Friedman 2003 3 0 9 3 Y N 18 9 3 3 Friedman 2003
134 average saccade amplitude, ASA 3 3 Friedman ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA Friedman 2003 ASA ASA ASA ASA 4 33 37 ASA CPAI-2 1.
135 2 3 6 8 1 4 5 7 2 2 2 2. 1 Cheung 1996 CPAI-2 CPAI CPAI 22 12 CPAI 28 12 541 341 268 1,911 18 70 social potency dependability accommodation interpersonal relatedness 16.7% 16.5% 12.2% 10% 55.4% Cronbach.63.70 10 30 1 0
136 2 83 12 13 50 3 2 1 1 2 3 150 50.401~.708.765.877 37 32.682.806.590.736 3 93 CRAT 1 0 5 0 1. 2. 3. Dell OptiPlex Gx620 Eyelink 1000 Chimei 19PS 1. 1000HZ 1000 2. 0.15 0.25º - 0.5º 3. +/- 25 mm 4. - 1000 Hz 0.01º 5. 2 msec 6. 7. 8.
137 SR Research parser 0.2 velocity 30 deg/sec acceleration 8000 deg/sec2 1. 56 drift correction 2. ASA CRAT ASA CPAI-2 ASA ASA CRAT ASA ASA 6.83 1.23 9.61 4.36
138 CPAI-2 CRAT SPSS for windows13.0.05 ASA CPAI-2 ASA CPAI-2 37 ASA r =.37, p.05 r =.04, p.05 r =-.14, p.05 ASA 3 ASA 4 3 ASA 4 ASA
139 ASA Friedman 2003 ASA ASA ASA 37 ASA r =.27, p =.056 r =-.06, p.05 r =.06, p.05 r =.14, p.05 ASA ASA Friedman 2003 ASA ASA ASA ASA 37 ASA.05 ASA ASA CRAT ASA CRAT r =.39 p.05 ASA CRAT ASA CRAT Friedman 2003 ASA CRAT ASA CRAT ASA ASA CRAT CRAT ASA CRAT 88 95
140 94 ASA ASA ASA ASA CRAT ASA spurious relationship CRAT ASA CRAT insight problem ASA ASA 28 14 Knoblich Ohlsson Raney 2001 5 Gilhooly, & Murphy, 2005; Kershaw, & Ohlsson, 2004 1. 1 2 3
141 2. 1 2 3 50 0.3 19.80 43.21 5 4.38 10.01 6 5
142 6 1 II 2 IX 3 VI 4 V 5 XI 15
143 1 t t 26 2.76, p.05 1 t * p.05 n M Sd t 14 5.42.89 2.76* 14 4.20 1.40 2 1 0 t t 26 -.70, p =.52 2 t n M Sd t 14.31.37 -.70 14.43.43 ASA Wakefield 1992 7
144 7 Wakefield 96 Newell Simon 1972 Anderson 1993 multi-dimensional problem spaces model 8 CRAT CRAT 8
145 Friedman 2003 Wakefield 1992 CRAT 96 Friedman 2003 CRAT ASA CRAT Friedman 2003 ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA CPAI-2 ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA CRAT ASA ASA CRAT ASA CRAT Friedman 2003 /ASA
146 ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA CRAT ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA Friedman 2003 CRAT ASA ASA ASA ASA 95 26 2 1-20 94 5 2 83-106 93 21 195-218 94 96 17 2 95 14 24-35
147 92 50 1 73-110 83 94 CQ 30 143-180 91 15 191-224 93 94 88 87 95 5 1 93-109 94 2005 97 92 CRAT 91-2815-C-003-035 -H 88 45 2 39-63 91 96 Torrance, E. P. 1990. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Verbal Forms A and B. Alencar, E. M., & Bruno-Faria, M. (1997). Characteristics of an organizational environment which stimulate and inhibit creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 271-281. Amabile, T. M. (1987). The Motivation to be Creative. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40, 39-58. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and Learning. American psychologoist, 48, 35-44. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory(CPAI). Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27, 181-199. Duchowski, A. T. (2002). A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 455-470. Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105-123. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, Research and Applications.
148 Cambridge, MA: MIT. Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Forster, J., & Werth, L. (2003). Attentional Priming Effects on Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 277-286. Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Gilhooly, K. J., & Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 279-302. Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure-of-intellect model. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 48, 1-4. Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. J. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In Glover J. A., Ronning R. R., & Rennold C. R. (eds.), Handbook of Creativity. (pp. 53-75). New York : Plenum. Kershaw, J. C., & Ohlsson, S. (2004). Analyzing Successful Training for Insight with Think-Aloud Data. Poster presented at the 2004 APA Convention (Honolulu). Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1000 1009. Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and Problem Solving (pp. 289-332). New York: Academic. Martindale, C. (1981). Cognition and consciousness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249 268). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. Metcalfe, J. (1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 288 294. Mumford, M. D., & Whetzel, D. L. (1996). Insight, creativity, and cognition: on Sternberg and Davidson s the nature of insight. Creativity research Journal, 1, 103-107. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cilffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappa, 42, 305-310. Santanen, E., Briggs, R., & de Vreede, G. (2004). Causal Relationships in Creative Problem Solving: comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 167 197. Wakefield, J. F. (1992). Creative thinking: Problem Solving Skills and the Art Orientation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Williams, F. E. (1980). Creativity assessment packet. Buffalo, NY: DOK. 2007 11 29 2008 01 08 2008 01 29 2008 01 29
149 Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 2008, 39, Special Issue on Test and Measurement, 127-149 National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. An Exploratory Study of the Relation Between the Average Saccade Amplitude and Creativity Under the Eyetracker Mechanism Hsuch-Chih Chen Shu-Ling Peng Chian-Chih Tseng Ha-Wjeng Chiou Department of Educational Department of Educational Department of Business Psychology and Counseling Psychology and Counseling Administration National Taiwan Normal University / National Taiwan National Central University Center for Research Normal University on Education and Development The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between the Average Saccade Amplitude (ASA) and Creativity under the eye tracker mechanism. The original concept is from Friedman, Fishbach, Förster, and Werth (2003). This study proposed that the principle of the ASA collected by eye tracker is similar to the scope of perceptual attention, and there is a positive relationship between the ASA and creativity. Furthermore, the ASA would affect the scope of conceptual attention, and in turn affect creative performance. According to the above description, there are four designed studies to test the relation between the ASA and creativity. Participants were Taiwanese students. In Studies 1, 2, and 3, participants watched 8 pictures for gathering the ASA data. We also collected scores of creative personality traits in CPAI-2, the test of Divergent Feeling and CRAT from the above participants. Pearson s correlations were used in the study. Results suggested that the correlations among the ASA, creativity (including personality trait of divergent thinking and curiousness), and CRAT were significantly positive or close to positive. In Study 4, we manipulated participants ASA scope, and then observed their performance in insight problem solving. t-test was used to analyze the data. The results showed that the ASA had no effect on the performance in insight problem solving. Based on these findings, we argued that the ASA is related to some specific problem-solving in creativity rather than insight problems, or the relation between the ASA and creativity were spurious. Suggestions for further studies are proposed. KEY WORDS: creativity, eyetracker, the average saccade amplitude