不同科学创造力个体干扰抑制机制的比较*

心理与行为研究 ›› 2014, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (2): 151-155.

不同科学创造力个体干扰抑制机制的比较^*

白学军¹，巩彦斌¹，胡卫平^，2，韩琴³，姚海娟^1，4

1 天津师范大学心理与行为研究院，天津 300074
2.陕西师范大学教师专业能力发展中心，西安 710062
3. 山西师范大学教育科学研究院，临汾 041004
4. 天津商业大学法学院心理学系，天津 300134

收稿日期:2013-09-22 出版日期:2014-03-20 发布日期:2014-10-24
通讯作者: 巩彦斌，男，天津师范大学心理与行为研究院博士生。E-mail:gongyanbin525@126.com。
作者简介:白学军，男，天津师范大学心理与行为研究院教授，博士生导师。
基金资助:
本研究得到教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目(08JJDXLX266)、天津市高等学校创新团队培养计划和天津市教育科学“十二五”规划课题(CE3011)的资助。

The Inhibitory Mechanism of Individuals with Different Scientific Creativity

Bai Xuejun¹,Gong Yanbin¹,Hu Weiping²,Han Qing³,Yao Haijun^1,4

1 Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074;
2 Center for the Development of Teacher Professional Ability, Shanxi Normal University, Xian 710062;
3 Institute of Educational Science, Shanxi Normal University, Linfen 041004;
4 Department of psychology at School of law, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134

Received:2013-09-22 Online:2014-03-20 Published:2014-10-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 选取《科学创造力量表》筛选出高、低科学创造力个体各20名，通过完成经典Stroop色字干扰抑制任务，探讨高、低科学创造力的个体抑制机制的差异。结果发现:在Stroop色字任务上，无论是高科学创造力组还是低科学创造力组，都出现了Stroop干扰效应，但低科学创造力组的Stroop效应更明显;高科学创造力组在字色不一致条件下的错误率显著低于低科学创造力组，但是两组被试在Stroop任务反应时上差异不显著。本研究结果提示高科学创造力个体的认知抑制能力强于低科学创造力个体。

关键词: 科学创造力, Stroop任务, 干扰效应, 抑制机制

Abstract: Using the Scientific Creativity Test for Adolescent (SCTA), 20 participants in high Scientific Creativity group and the matched 20 participants in low Scientific Creativity group were selected. Stroop interference paradigm was used to investigate the differences of the inhibitory mechanism between the high Scientific Creativity group and the low Scientific Creativity group. The results showed: 1) In the Stroop task, the Stroop effect are respectively found in both high Scientific Creativity group and low Scientific Creativity group. But Stroop interference effect was more significant in low Scientific Creativity group. 2) In incongruent condition, the false rate of high Scientific Creativity group is fewer significant than low Scientific Creativity group. In addition, whether in congruent condition or in incongruent condition, the reaction time of high Scientific Creativity group is not significantly higher than the low Scientific Creativity group. In short, the findings suggested that high Scientific Creativity group had more efficient inhibition mechanism.

Key words: scientific creativity, Stroop Task, interference effect, inhibitory mechanism

中图分类号:

B842.1

白学军，巩彦斌，胡卫平，韩琴，姚海娟. 不同科学创造力个体干扰抑制机制的比较^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2014, 12(2): 151-155.

Bai Xuejun,Gong Yanbin,Hu Weiping,Han Qing,Yao Haijun. The Inhibitory Mechanism of Individuals with Different Scientific Creativity[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2014, 12(2): 151-155.

参考文献

吉尔福特. (2006). 创造性才能:他们的性质、用途与培养. 北京:人民教育出版社.
胡卫平. (2003). 青少年科学创造力的发展与培养. 北京:北京师范大学出版社,19-20.
胡卫平,Philip Adey,申继亮,林崇德. (2004). 中英青少年科学创造力发展的比较. 心理学报, 36(6), 718-731.
胡卫平,张淳俊. (2007). 跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力的关系. 心理学报, 39(4), 697-705.
林纬伦. (2010). 不同创造力运作与认知抑制、工作记忆广度间关系之探讨. 博士学位论文. 国立台湾大学.
申继亮,胡卫平,林崇德. (2002). 青少年科学创造力测验的编制. 心理发展与教育,18(4), 76-81.
衣新发,胡卫平. (2007). 科学创造力与艺术创造力:启动效应及领域影响. 心理科学进展, 15(1), 22-30.
张丽华,白学军,张秀红. (2007). 创造性思维能力高、低大学生特性负启动效应的实验研究. 心理与行为研究, 5, 112-115.
张丽华,胡领红,白学军. (2008). 创造性思维与分心抑制能力关系的汉字负启动效应实验研究.心理科学, 31, 638-641.
Burch, G. S. J., Hemsley, D. R., Pavelis, C., & Corr, P. (2006). Personality, creativity and latent inhibition. European Journal of Personality, 20, 107-122.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: the natural history of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1121-1131.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290-309.
Finke, R. A.,Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and application. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Golden, C. J. (1975). The measurement of creativity by the stroop color and word test. Journal of personality Assessment,39,386-390.
Green, M. J., & Williams, L. M. (1999). Schizotypy and creativity as effects of reduce cognitive inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 263-276.
Groborz, M., & Necka, E. (2003). Creativity and cognitive control: explorations of generation and evaluation skills. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 183-197.
Karlsson, J. L. (1970). Genetic association of giftedness and creativity with schizophrenia. Hereditas, 66, 177-182.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). The search of human effectiveness. Buffalo, NY: Creative education Fundation .
Martindale, C. (2007). Creativity, primordial cognition, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1777-1785.
Schmajuk, N., Aziz, D. R., & Bates, M. J. B. (2009). Attentional-Associative interactions in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 92-103.
Sternberg R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., & Matthews, J. (2009). Divergent thinking is related to faster relatedness judgements. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 99-103.
White, H. A., & Shah, P. (2006). Uninhibited imaginations: creativity in adults with attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1121-1131.
Zabelina, D. L., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). Creativity as flexible cognitive control. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 136-143.

[1]	孙红梅, 孙小越, 郝雨. 挫折情境下自我肯定对执行功能的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 615-621.
[2]	苏明宇, 王光明. STEAM训练提升小学生的注意抑制与注意集中能力[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 701-705.
[3]	王梦颖, 仝宇光, 高贺明. 不同短时程SOA下定向遗忘的抑制加工过程[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 319-325.
[4]	黄琪, 辛自强, 安媛媛, 赵悦. 公安民警的创伤后应激症状对执行功能的影响—基于Stroop范式的探究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 281-288.
[5]	于斌，刘惠军，乐国安. 工作记忆广度与自我损耗的关系[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(5): 577-583.
[6]	贾宁；白学军. 知觉运动学习中的背景干扰效应和元认知监测[J]. , 2009, 7(1): 50-55.
[7]	宋广文韩树杰. 场依存—独立认知方式干扰抑制的比较[J]. , 2007, 5(2): 100-104.