ArticleBMC psychology2026
Assessing the role of attentional inhibition and cognitive flexibility in convergent and divergent thinking during creative task performance.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
Findings regarding the role of attentional inhibition and cognitive flexibility in creative cognition have been inconsistent, potentially due to methodological differences in measures of attention and creativity. To clarify these relationships, we conducted two experiments assessing how attentional inhibition and cognitive flexibility relate to convergent and divergent creative thinking. In Experiment 1, individual differences in flanker task performance (reaction time and accuracy) across congruent, incongruent and reversed trials were used to derive metrics of inhibition and flexibility, which were then used to predict performance on the Compound Remote Associates Test (CRAT) and Alternative Uses Task (AUT). In Experiment 2, we extended this approach by incorporating the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test to measure cognitive flexibility, and by eliciting subjective reports of problem-solving strategy (i.e., insight vs. analysis) for each CRAT item. Across both experiments, convergent creativity, indexed by CRAT accuracy, was predicted by both attentional inhibition and cognitive flexibility, especially when these supported the use of analytic problem-solving strategies, as measured by retrospective self-report. In contrast, divergent creativity showed weaker and more selective associations, whereby attentional inhibition predicted AUT originality, but not AUT fluency or AUT flexibility, while cognitive flexibility was not significantly related to any AUT dimension. These findings suggest that attentional inhibition and cognitive flexibility demonstrate a stronger and more consistent predictive relationship with convergent thinking performance compared to divergent thinking performance.
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.