ArticleBrain sciences2025
The Role of Mind Wandering During Incubation in Divergent and Convergent Creative Thinking.
Article in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesWhile mind wandering has often been linked to negative outcomes, some research suggests it has potential benefits for creativity, particularly through incubation. However, two critical gaps remain: limited understanding of mind wandering's effects on creative performance and lack of comparative research examining its impact on both divergent and convergent thinking. The study addressed these gaps by comparing the effects of two types of mind wandering (i.e., with and without awareness) on both types of creative thinking, using repeated and novel problems post-incubation to isolate effects.
methodsEighty-five participants completed divergent (Unusual Uses Task, UUT) and convergent (Compound Remote Associate Task, CRA) thinking tasks, interspersed with a 0-back incubation task. Thought probes measured mind wandering frequency and awareness. Performance was assessed for fluency and originality (UUT) and accuracy (CRA), with problems categorised by difficulty.
resultsResults revealed no significant effects of mind wandering on divergent thinking, though incubation improved fluency, particularly for repeated items. For convergent thinking, mind wandering with awareness enhanced performance on low-difficulty repeated items, while mind wandering without awareness hindered novel moderate-difficulty items. Divergent and convergent performance showed no correlation, suggesting distinct cognitive demands.
conclusionsThe findings provide evidence that mind wandering's impact on creativity is limited and context-dependent, with conscious reflection during incubation more beneficial than uncontrolled drifting. Differences in task demands and difficulty levels further modulate these effects. Future research should explore naturalistic settings and use of incubation tasks that do not compete for cognitive resources with the core task to better understand incubation and mind wandering's roles in creativity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.