Creativity and the Wandering Mind: Spontaneous and Controlled Cognition

By James C. Kaufman

Creativity and the Wandering Mind: Spontaneous and Controlled Cognition summarizes research on the impact of mind wandering and cognitive control on creativity, including imagination, fantasy and play. Most coverage in this area has either focused on the negative consequences of mind wandering on focused problem solving or the positive effect of mindfulness, but not on the positive consequences of mind wandering. This volume bridges that gap. Research indicates that most people experience mind wandering during a large percentage of their waking time, and that it is a baseline default mode of brain function during the awake but resting state. This volume explores the different kinds of mind wandering and its positive impact on imagination, play, problem-solving, and creative production.

• Discusses spontaneous and controlled processes in creativity
• Examines the relationship between mind wandering, consciousness, and imagination
• Reviews research on problem-solving, imagination, play, and learning
• Highlights the positive impact of mind wandering on creative thought and output

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Jun 20, 2020
• ISBN: 9780128166147

Book preview

Creativity and the Wandering Mind

Spontaneous and Controlled Cognition

Editors

David D. Preiss

Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Diego Cosmelli

Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

James C. Kaufman

Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Explorations in Creativity Research

Copyright

Dedications

Contributors

Acknowledgments

An Introduction to Creativity and the Wandering Mind

Part I. Spontaneous and controlled processes in creativity

Chapter 1. Mind wandering: framework of a lexicon and musings on creativity

Introduction

Mind wandering

Costs and benefits of mind wandering

Identify times and distractors

Conclusion

Chapter 2. Autonomy and control across cognition: insights from creativity, memory, mind wandering, and reasoning research

Introduction

Creativity

Reasoning

Mind wandering

Memory

Insights

Conclusion

Chapter 3. Capturing the dynamics of creative daydreaming

Spontaneous insights from absent minds

The qualities of productive mind wandering

Conclusion

Chapter 4. The relationships between abstraction and creativity

Introduction

Abstraction

Abstraction and creativity

Abstraction and arts

Conclusions

Part II. Mind wandering, consciousness, and imagination

Chapter 5. Imagination and mind wandering: two sides of the same coin? A brain dynamics perspective

Introduction

Psychological features of imagination and mind wandering

How imagination and mind wandering affect attention and cognition?

Brain networks underlying imagination and mind wandering

Conclusion

Chapter 6. Altered states of consciousness and creativity

Components of creativity

The cognitive control of creativity

Altered states of consciousness

Drug-induced altered states of consciousness and creativity

Meditation-induced altered states of consciousness and creativity

Hallucinations and creativity

Conclusions and future directions

Chapter 7. Creating the stuff of experience: spontaneous thoughts, memory, and hypnosis in clinical and forensic contexts

Mind wandering and spontaneous thoughts

Our affectable nature

Creativity and hypnotic realities

Spontaneous thought, hypnosis, and suggestion in the clinical context

Hypnosis, memory, and false memory in the forensic context

Spontaneous thoughts, autobiographical memory, and false memory

The reconstructive nature of memory

Hypnosis and memory recovery

Conclusions

Part III. Imagination, play, and learning

Chapter 8. Relations between imagination and creativity

What is imagination?

What is creativity?

Why might we expect imagination and creativity to be related?

Measurement of imagination and creativity

Empirical findings

Effects of the content of pretense on its relations to creativity

Effects of personality variables on the imagination–creativity relation

Conclusion and future directions

Chapter 9. Pretend play in young children and the emergence of creativity

Pretend play and creativity; the evidence so far

Conceptions of pretence and creativity: a possible way forward

Pretend play, language development, and creativity

Pretend play and self-regulation

A study of complex, social pretend play

Conclusion

Chapter 10. Mind wandering, fantasy, and pretend play: a natural combination

Introduction

Mind wandering, fantasy, and pretend play

Neurological correlates

Primary process and adaptive regression

Pretend play and creativity: empirical support

Understanding the underlying mechanisms

Helping children develop play skills

Chapter 11. Exploring the connection between imagination and creativity in academic learning

Assumptions

Educational imagination

Intrapsychological sphere

Interpsychological sphere

Part IV. Mind wandering and creative production

Chapter 12. Productive mind wandering in design practice

Productive mind wandering in design practice

Elaborating through constraints

Elaborating through flip-flopping

Elaborating through reflection-in-action

Exploring through identifying conventions

Exploring through incubation and illumination

Exploring through increasing speed

Exploring through deliberate derailing

Exploring through the use of eccentric sources

Plural-mind

Summoned hypomania

Conclusion

Chapter 13. Poetry, meaning making, and mind wandering

The poetic mode of thought

The process

Poetry and attention

Epilogue

Appendix

Part V. Conclusion

Chapter 14. Fragments from a notebook on novelty and constraint

Part 1: Wittgenstein meets Hamlet

Part 2: A dialogue between a pedagogue and a cognitive romantic

Part 3: What Hogan thought

Part 4: A letter from the acquisitions editor

Part 5: From the first referee's report

Part 6: Obituary

Part 7: From the second referee's report

Part 8: The editors respond (letter to the editorial board of the publisher)

Part 9: The Séance

Part 10: From google books: a preview from Pillsbury D. Boy's creativity and Hamlet

Part 11: From a dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD in English literature at the Nanjing University of Science and Technology. By precious Hairpin (宝钗)

Part 12: From a discussion on Hogan's Generative principles of story style: Shakespeare and the integration of genres, a talk delivered at the Poetics and Linguistics Association in June of 2017

Part 13: A note from the author

Appendix. Supplementary materials, edited by Charles Kinbote

Index

Explorations in Creativity Research

Series Editor

James C. Kaufman

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-816400-6

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Nikki Levy

Editorial Project Manager: Barbara Makinster

Production Project Manager: Paul Prasad Chandramohan

Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Dedications

For Ilana and Meital, my daughters, because they are always a loving and living reminder of creativity and mind wandering in action.

– DDP

For Isabel and Juan Carlos, sine qua non

– DC

For Roni Reiter-Palmon, a brilliant collaborator, a generous colleague, and a dear, trusted friend

– JCK

Contributors

Damla Aksen,     Department of Psychology, Binghamton University (SUNY), Binghamton, NY, United States

Paul Joseph Barnett,     Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States

Nathaniel Barr,     School of Humanities and Creativity, Sheridan College, Oakville, ON, Canada

Roger Beaty,     Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, United States

Ronald A. Beghetto,     Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States

Elizabeth A. Boerger,     Department of Psychology, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA, United States

Louise Bunce,     Department of Sport, Health Sciences and Social Work, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom

Kalina Christoff

Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada

Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada

Diego Cosmelli,     Escuela de Psicologia, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Charles Dobson,     Faculty of Design & Dynamic Media, Emily Carr University of Art + Design, BC, Canada

Patrick Colm Hogan,     Department of English, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States

Bernhard Hommel,     Leiden University, Cognitive Psychology Unit & Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, the Netherlands

James C. Kaufman,     Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States

Steven Jay Lynn,     Department of Psychology, Binghamton University (SUNY), Binghamton, NY, United States

Vladimir Miskovic,     Department of Psychology, Binghamton University (SUNY), Binghamton, NY, United States

Lisha O'Sullivan,     Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Massimiliano Palmiero

Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, L’Aquila University, L’Aquila, Italy

Craig Polizzi,     Department of Psychology, Binghamton University (SUNY), Binghamton, NY, United States

David D. Preiss,     Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Luisa Prochazkova,     Leiden University, Cognitive Psychology Unit & Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, the Netherlands

Sandra W. Russ,     Case Western Reserve University, Department of Psychological Sciences, Mather Memorial Building, Cleveland, OH, United States

Jonathan W. Schooler,     Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States

Kathy L. Schuh,     College of Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States

Paul Seli,     Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States

Mario Villena-González,     Escuela de Psicologia, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

David Whitebread,     Faculty of Education, Homerton College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Jacqueline D. Woolley,     Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States

Claire M. Zedelius,     Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States

Acknowledgments

1181095 from ANID: ‘How do attentional and metacognitive strategies impact academic performance and the emotional well-being of university and secondary school students? Costs and gains in learning and creativity’.

The authors would like to thank Nikki Levy, Barbara Makinster, and Paul Prasad Chandramohan from Academic Press.

An Introduction to Creativity and the Wandering Mind

The purpose of this book is to provide readers with a state-of-the-art collection of papers about the impact that mind wandering and cognitive control have on several manifestations of creativity, including imagination, fantasy, and play. During the current century, there has been a growing interest in investigating the nature of mind wandering and its impact on other psychological processes (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006; Smallwood, Schooler, & Fiske, 2015 ). We hope a volume focused on the positive consequences of mind wandering will help bring this topic the attention it deserves (in contrast to, for instance, the positive impact of mindfulness and focused attention). In fact, a large part of the research on mind wandering has emphasized its negative consequences (e.g., Smallwood, Fishman, & Schooler, 2007). That is not unexpected. When the mind wanders, people are less efficient in solving problems requiring a focused mind, such as taking standardized tests of intelligence or other analytical measures (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). Yet emphasis on the positive dimension of mind wandering is not new. Jerome Singer and his colleagues investigated the relationship between daydreaming and fantasy during the 1960s and 1970s (McMillan, Kaufman, & Singer, 2013). Several researchers have also explored other positive dimensions of mind wandering (e.g., Baird, Smallwood, Mrazek, Franklin, & Schooler, 2012; Cosmelli & Preiss, 2014; Mooneyham & Schooler, 2013; Preiss, Cosmelli, Grau, & Ortiz, 2016; Preiss & Cosmelli, 2017; Smallwood & Andrews-Hanna, 2013).

Mind wandering is not simply an odd incident in everyday life; its prevalence goes well beyond nonadaptive situations. Both the initial daydreaming studies (McMillan et al., 2013; Singer, 1975) and later work (Christoff, Gordon, Smallwood, Smith, & Schooler, 2009; Kane et al., 2007) show that people experience mind wandering during a large percentage of their waking time. In addition, mind wandering has deep neurobiological roots, as demonstrated by research on the brain's default network, which shows activity characteristic of awake but resting states and which displays reduced activity during specific goal-directed behaviors (Raichle et al., 2001; Raichle & Snyder, 2007). Neuronal connectivity between these regions correlates positively with general intelligence and creativity (Takeuchi et al., 2011a). Furthermore, individuals who are more creative maintain higher levels of activity in the posterior regions of the default network when performing working memory tasks (Takeuchi et al., 2011b).

To understand the relationship between mind wandering and creativity, it is important to note that mind wandering is not a monolithic phenomenon. There are individual differences in mind wandering's contents. Singer (1975) classified mind wandering in three types: two are negative, related to tortured self-examination or anxious self-doubting, and the last is positive, reflecting an acceptance of inner experience and elaborated imagery and fantasy. The latter is more related to creativity. A more recent distinction is that between intentional and unintentional mind wandering (Seli, Carriere, & Smilek, 2015), where the former is characteristic of creative work (Preiss & Cosmelli, 2017). Spontaneous mind wandering is associated with creativity as well, particularly during incubation (Baird et al., 2012). As has been noted by eminent creativity scholar Keith Sawyer (2011),

people spend more of their daily lives engaged in an incubation-like state than they probably realize: People typically are only consciously aware of one-half of their mind wandering episodes. This suggests an interesting possibility that creativity researchers might study further: these brief episodes of mind wandering may provide the mind with moments of ‘mini incubation’ that contribute to creative thought, by temporarily taking conscious attention away from the problem at hand and providing a brief opportunity for insight to occur

(p. 146).

In order to contribute to the growing literature addressing the positive consequences of mind wandering, this book collects chapters investigating the impact of mind wandering on creativity and how it interacts with cognitive control, specifically metacognition. Although mind wandering has been related to the concept of meta-awareness or metacognitive awareness (Schooler et al., 2011), its relationship with cognitive control and its implications for other dimensions of psychological life such as creativity, imagination, fantasy, and play have not been thoroughly discussed. Schooler et al. (2011) theorize that meta-awareness could help to regulate mind wandering and improve the regulation of conscious thought. Indeed, metacognitive and self-regulatory strategies have been heralded as a way to remediate the negative impact of mind wandering. Therefore, we should also consider whether metacognition has an eventual negative impact on the positive consequences of mind wandering, especially creativity. These relations are complex and dynamic and, probably, not a zero-sum game. Fox and Christoff (2014) suggest that creative generative processes are based on spontaneous thought processes, but creative evaluation requires metacognitive engagement. They propose that metacognition may inhibit spontaneous idea generation, but it can improve creative evaluation. Furthermore, they suggest that both metacognitive and default mode brain networks are coactivated during creative evaluation and exhibit enhanced connectivity during the creative processes. As a consequence of the interaction between these two networks, people can obtain their best creative results. Several chapters in this book address this interesting interplay between spontaneous and controlled thought, especially in the first section.

The book is organized as follows. A first section entitled Spontaneous and controlled processes in creativity includes theoretical papers on the interaction between spontaneous and controlled processes. First, Barnett and Kaufman address the issue of terminology in the field of mind wandering and compare the challenges faced by researchers on mind wandering to those that arise for people working on creativity. The authors, in an attempt to unify research, introduce a framework that identifies the general components of mind wandering. The framework is then used to describe a real-world example of deliberate mind wandering as a tool for designing and problem solving. Next, Barr, Beaty, and Seli discuss the interaction between associative and executive processes in the creative process. The authors argue that connecting and integrating creativity research to other research literatures can expedite advances in this area. In short, the authors show how instances of research in the areas of mind wandering, memory, and reasoning have all independently distinguished processing that is unintentional, spontaneous, and autonomous from that which is intentional, deliberate, and controlled. In the third chapter of the section, Zedelius and Schooler examine what happens when the human mind is disengaged from a problem. The authors propose that letting the mind wander facilitates unconscious memory processes supporting incubation. They discuss the circumstances under which such incubation effects are likely to occur and why, the qualities and contents of their spontaneous thoughts, and how these relate to creativity. Finally, Palmiero discusses the role of abstraction in creativity. Reviewing several approaches, he proposes that abstraction involves creativity by mapping the relationship between different things or properties. He considers how mind wandering contributes to this process as well as possible brain mechanisms underlying the relationship between abstraction and creativity.

The second section is entitled Mind wandering, consciousness, and imagination. The first chapter of this section by Villena-González and Cosmelli discusses if and how imagination relates to mind wandering, and whether they depend on similar brain mechanisms. The authors pay particular attention to the spontaneous/deliberate contrast in both phenomena as well as to the importance of considering thought contents, modality, temporality, and emotional valence when studying stimulus-independent cognition. Drawing from recent advances in brain connectivity studies analyzing the brain's default mode network, the authors challenge the idea that mind wandering and imagination are substantially different processes. Next, Prochazkova and Hommel discuss the relationship between altered states of consciousness (ASC) and creative performance, specifically, convergent and divergent thinking. The authors discuss behavioral and neuronal findings from three areas that reflect strong connections between ASC and the underlying effects on metacontrol on the one hand and components of creativity on the other: drug-induced ASC, meditation-induced ASC, and hallucinations. The authors identify a general trend suggesting that factors that induce ASC are likely to alter the metacontrol state by biasing it toward either persistence or flexibility. Closing this section, Lynn, Polizzi, Miskovic, and Aksen argue that spontaneous thoughts provide a readiness potential to respond to everyday life challenges. The authors propose that hypnotic suggestions can limit spontaneous thoughts and channel them in adaptive directions, boosting personal growth and relieving psychopathology. However, the hypnotic context can intensify reality monitoring and prediction errors, and produce false yet believed-in memories with potentially negative consequences in forensic situations.

The third section includes chapters addressing the relationships between imagination, play, and learning. First, Woolley, Bunce, and Boerger explore the relation between imagination and creativity, with an emphasis on its origins and development. They discuss different models of creativity, debates about its nature, and different ways of measuring both imagination and creativity. The chapter reviews empirical studies with children, both correlational and experimental. The authors conclude that, although the evidence is encouraging, there is still much work to do in order to uncover a causal relation between imagination and creativity. Next, Whitebread and O'Sullivan examine the evidence supporting the widely assumed relationship between children's pretend play and the development of their creativity. The authors propose a model of a causal link, which is mediated by the development of children's representational and metacognitive or self-regulatory abilities. The authors review empirical evidence in support of this proposed mediational model and conclude with a plea for more detailed observational studies in order to examine the causal links proposed in this model. The following chapter, by Russ, considers mind wandering as a natural component of pretend play in children. The chapter conceptualizes much of the ideation expressed in play as thoughts, images, memories, and fantasies experienced in a spontaneous fashion. The author proposes that in pretend play this ideation is expressed and put into a coherent and meaningful narrative. Specifically, through pretend play, children learn to become comfortable with ideas and fantasy, especially with affect-laden thoughts, and to utilize them creatively. Closing this section, Beghetto and Schuh explore the connection between imagination and creativity in academic learning. This chapter addresses this link by discussing a model of classroom learning that combines both imaginative processes and creative outcomes. More specifically, the authors highlight key similarities and differences between imaginative processes and creativity outcomes, and discuss their roles in academic learning. The authors close their chapter by considering implications for theory and research.

The fourth section presents two concrete illustrations of the relationship between mind wandering and creative production. Dobson and Christoff write about the various ways in which designers make mind wandering creative. For them, designing involves an iterative process of focus-finding, which requires a process of alternating between greater focus and greater mind wandering. The authors note that, on the one hand, focusing through constraints, flip-flop thinking, and reflection in action are strategies for attaining greater focus. On the other hand, questioning conventions, incubation and illumination, the use of eccentric sources, and working rapidly are strategies for attaining greater mind wandering. They conclude that plural-mind is a way to facilitate productive group mind wandering. Next, Preiss proposes a theory of the psychological dynamics involved in the creation of poetry. He integrates his theory to others advanced in the psychology of creativity. The theory suggests that, at the moment of facing a writing task, the poet must deal with three working spaces for creative problem solving: the internal world, poetic tradition, and originality. He shows that in these three working spaces, mind wandering plays an extremely important role as a dynamic force that helps the poet to advance from the raw (personal) material of emotion to the polished (and universal) material of poetry.

The book closes with an integrative and wonderfully imaginative chapter by Hogan. Focusing on literary creativity, the chapter considers creative story developments and metaphors, particularly in Hamlet. In order to illustrate these points, the essay draws on Hamlet and other literary works not only as targets of analysis, but also as models for the formal presentation of the analysis. Like a montage of earlier scenes at the end of a film, the chapter also recalls and celebrates the other chapters in the volume, principally through the weaving of allusive references to the scholarly fabric of the volume.

Finally, we hope this book will increase readers' knowledge of creativity by focusing on the processes underlying mind wandering and cognitive control and how they affect the creative process. We are excited by the tremendous authors who have contributed to this volume and hope that it will be of as much interest to you, the reader, as it has been to us, the editors.

David D. Preiss

Diego Cosmelli

James C. Kaufman

References

Baird B, Smallwood J, Mrazek M, Franklin M, Schooler J.W. Inspired by distraction: Mind-wandering facilitates creative incubation.  Psychological Science . 2012;23(10):1117–1122. doi: 10.1177/0956797612446024.

Christoff K, Gordon A.M, Smallwood J, Smith R, Schooler J.W. Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 2009;106(21):8719–8724. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900234106.

Cosmelli D, Preiss D.D. On the temporality of creative insight: a psychological and phenomenological perspective.  Frontiers in Psychology . 2014;5 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01184.

Fox K.C.R, Christoff K. Metacognitive facilitation of spontaneous thought processes: When metacognition helps the wandering mind find its way. In: Fleming S, Frith C, eds.  The Cognitive Neuroscience of Metacognition (pp. 293–319) . Springer; 2014 doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45190-4_13.

Kane M.J, Brown L.E, Little J.C, Silvia P.J, Myin-Germeys I, Kwapil T.R. For whom the mind wanders, and when: An experience-sampling study of working memory and executive control in daily life.  Psychological Science . 2007;18(7):614–621. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01948.x.

McMillan R.L, Kaufman S.B, Singer J.L. Ode to positive constructive daydreaming.  Frontiers in Psychology . 2013;4 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00626.

Mooneyham B.W, Schooler J.W. The costs and benefits of mind-wandering: A review.  Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale . 2013;67(1):11–18. doi: 10.1037/a0031569.

Preiss D.D, Cosmelli D. Mind wandering, creative writing, and the self. In: Karwowski M, Kaufman J.C, eds.  Explorations in creativity research. The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity . Elsevier Academic Press; 2017:301–313. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809790-8.00017-0.

Preiss D.D, Cosmelli D, Grau V, Ortiz D. Examining the relationship between mind wandering, metacognition and creativity in university and vocational students.  Learning and Individual Differences . 2016;51:417–426. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.010.

Raichle M.E, MacLeod A.M, Snyder A.Z, Powers W.J, Gusnard D.A, Shulman G.L.A default mode of brain function.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 2001;98(2):676–682. doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.2.676.

Raichle M.E, Snyder A.Z. A default mode of brain function: A brief history of an evolving idea.  Neuroimage . 2007;37(4):1083–1090. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.041.

Sawyer K. The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review.  Creativity Research Journal . 2011;23(2):137–154. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.571191. .

Schooler J.W, Smallwood J, Christoff K, Handy T.C, Reichle E.D, Sayette M.A.Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind.  Trends in Cognitive Sciences . 2011;15(7):319–326. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.006.

Seli P, Carriere J, Smilek D. Not all mind wandering is created equal: Dissociating deliberate from spontaneous mind wandering.  Psychological Research . 2015;79:750–758. doi: 10.1007/s00426-014-0617-x.

Singer J.L. Navigating the stream of consciousness: Research in daydreaming and related inner experience.  American Psychologist . 1975;30(7):727–738. doi: 10.1037/h0076928.

Smallwood J, Andrews-Hanna J. Not all minds that wander are lost: The importance of a balanced perspective on the mind-wandering state.  Frontiers in Psychology . 2013;4:441. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00441.

Smallwood J, Fishman D.J, Schooler J.W. Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance.  Psychonomic Bulletin and Review . 2007;14:230–236. doi: 10.3758/BF03194057.

Smallwood J, Schooler J.W. The restless mind.  Psychological Bulletin . 2006;132(6):946–958. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946.

Smallwood J, Schooler J.W. The Science of Mind Wandering: Empirically Navigating the Stream of Consciousness.  Annual Review of Psychology . 2015;66(1):487–518. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331.

Takeuchi H, Taki Y, Hashizume H, Sassa Y, Nagase T, Nouchi R, Kawashima R. Cerebral blood flow during rest associates with general intelligence and creativity.  PLoS One . 2011;6(9) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025532.

Takeuchi H, Taki Y, Hashizume H, Sassa Y, Nagase T, Nouchi R, Kawashima R. Failing to deactivate: The association between brain activity during a working memory task and creativity.  NeuroImage . 2011;55(2):681–687. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.052.

Part I

Spontaneous and controlled processes in creativity

Outline

Chapter 1. Mind wandering: framework of a lexicon and musings on creativity

Chapter 2. Autonomy and control across cognition: insights from creativity, memory, mind wandering, and reasoning research

Chapter 3. Capturing the dynamics of creative daydreaming

Chapter 4. The relationships between abstraction and creativity

Chapter 1

Mind wandering

framework of a lexicon and musings on creativity

Paul Joseph Barnett, and James C. Kaufman     Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States

Abstract

This chapter addresses some of the confusion and inconsistencies of language in the field of mind wandering. It emphasizes the importance of consistent terminology, referencing the field of creativity as an example of an area of study that faced a similar problem. In an attempt to unify past and present research, a framework of terms is proposed that identifies the general components of mind wandering. The proposed framework is then used to describe a real-world example of deliberate mind wandering as a tool for designing and problem-solving. Finely, one possible method of deliberate mind wandering is outlined as an example of how some components of mind wandering can be beneficial in everyday life.

Keywords

Creativity; Daydreaming; Deliberate; Intentional; Lexicon; Mind wandering; Spontaneous; Terminology

Introduction

The field of creativity has faced many challenges with language as it has developed as an area of research. Identifying the various components and related constructs of creativity (such as innovation and imagination) and determining how to define them and what to call them has been a process requiring deliberate work and professional collaboration (e.g., Reiter-Palmon, Beghetto, & Kaufman, 2014). There are areas that necessitate further refinement, but the most fundamental elements about creativity—what it is and what it is not—have been established with enough clarity and consistency to allow it to be a focus of study and facilitate discussion between researchers.

For whatever complications have been faced by those within creativity, the problems are even worse when one looks outside of the field. Researchers that work in other areas sometimes reference creativity, but often they do not fully understand the elements they are referencing and may misspeak or misrepresent the findings of a study. Occasionally, an article or chapter purportedly claiming to be about creativity will incorrectly state in the first paragraph that no one agrees on what creativity is (see Cropley, 2015) or that creativity cannot be defined. The media is even worse in its misunderstanding and misrepresentations. The number of words used as synonyms for creativity that represent quite different concepts is extensive. In the same article discussing creativity, one might see the terms imagination, genius, artistic, innovation, or entrepreneur used interchangeably with creativity. All of these concepts are different and have a specific definition within psychology. Creativity is traditionally defined as being both novel and task appropriate (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004). Innovation is creativity with the additional requirement of application (West, 2002; West, Hirst, Richter, & Shipton, 2004). One can have a creative idea, but for it to be innovative, it must also be implemented. Entrepreneurship, like innovation, requires not only creativity but also the formation of an entity such as a business (Low & MacMillan, 1988). Art can be creative, but not all art is creative. A student painting a copy of a classic Vermeer has arguably produced a work of art, though not necessarily a creative one. Copying a craft project from the Internet may be task appropriate, but if the copy is exactly accurate and does not deviate from the original, then it has no novelty and therefore is not considered creative (Simonton, 2012). Genius involves individuals who are highly accomplished in intelligence, creativity, or leadership (Simonton, 2009); they often are creative, but at an exceptionally elite level. Imagination is an internal process, and it does not explicitly require novelty or task appropriateness (Markman, Klein, & Suhr, 2009). Though many of these concepts are related to creativity, some overlapping significantly, they are still separate constructs. The color orange significantly overlaps with red and yellow but is its own unique color despite this shared content.

All these difficulties combine such that a scholar not in the field may be confused about what creativity is and how it can be studied. Worse, they may think it is an entirely subjective entity that cannot be defined or studied. This confusion may hinder the potential of creativity to reduce inequities in standardized testing (Kaufman, 2015; Sternberg, 2010), help companies make better hiring decisions (Hunter, Cushenbery, & Friedrich, 2012), or give more accurate and complete assessments of students for acceptance into gifted programs or university (Kaufman, 2010; Luria, O'Brien, & Kaufman, 2016). This is an issue of significance not just for the individuals involved in these situations but also for the progress and advancement of society as a whole. If the average person (or policy maker) does not understand what creativity is or that it can be measured, they will be unlikely to support it being included as part of standardized tests, hiring practices, or intelligence testing, let alone approve research funding.

There are many reasons why those who study creativity have faced so many challenges. First, creativity is not a simple concrete thing that can be directly observed. It is a complex multifaceted cognitive concept that inextricably relates to numerous other complex concepts. Another reason is that the field is relatively young, having only been solidified as an area of study in the 1950s when the president of the American Psychological Association, J.P. Guilford, argued that creativity was an important, but understudied, area of psychology (Guilford, 1950). Since then, the topic of creativity has been researched and explored such that through much effort, many of the complex components have been identified, labeled, and defined. It is precisely because creativity and some of the related concepts are so difficult to define that doing so was such a high priority for the field. Establishing a common language facilitates more robust and accurate communication and reduces confusion caused by simple semantic misunderstandings.

Mind wandering history

Mind wandering research is quite comparable with that of creativity, from having a core construct that is complex and cannot be directly observed to being closely tied to other fields to being a relatively young field (see McCraven, Singer, & Wilensky, 1956; Singer, 1955; Singer & Opler, 1956). One of the main points of distinction between the two fields, however, is that creativity developed as a direct response to Guilford pointing out the importance of creativity and the need to study it. Mind wandering had no such call to action. Guilford's speech could be considered a moment of coalescence for the field of creativity, whereas the field of mind wandering experienced a slower growth that was more organic and fragmented. In the 1950s, Jerome L. Singer started researching daydreaming, and his work became the foundation upon which the bulk of current mind wandering research is built (see McMillan, Kaufman, & Singer, 2013). It could be because the field grew slowly, it was perceived as less of a priority, or communication within the field was less centralized, but regardless the cause, the field of mind wandering continues to face challenges associated with disorganized and imprecise language, a point that has been lamented by the field: This proliferation of terminology has obscured the common features of the phenomena under discussion and made it more difficult for current researchers to connect their work with the work of scholars who trod similar paths before them (McMillan et al., 2013, p. 1).

This chapter is not intended to offer a comprehensive solution to this problem. Truthfully, it may not even reach a partial one. Instead, the goal of this chapter is to explore and identify the various elements of mind wandering that have been discussed in the literature and bring them all together. From there, we will develop a rough taxonomy of the various elements and propose a linguistic framework. Whether this structure is built upon or torn down by others in the future (or, perhaps, simply ignored), it is intended to be a benchmark or starting point that aims for common ground and to encourage conversation and growth within the field. The latter half of the chapter addresses the positive aspects of mind wandering and some methods for using deliberate mind wandering as a tool to support incubation, creativity, and problem-solving.

Mind wandering

What is mind wandering?

Mind wandering is ubiquitous to the human experience and may be the brain's default process (Buckner, Andrews-Hanna, & Schacter, 2008; Christoff, Gordon, Smallwood, Smith, & Schooler, 2009; Mason et al., 2007; Raichle et al., 2001). It is an occurrence that 96% of American adults say they experience daily (Singer & McCraven, 1961), and it occupies up to 50% of the waking day (Kane et al., 2007; Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010; Klinger, 1999, 2009; Klinger, Miles, & Cox, 1987 ). How is it actually defined? One common and consistent definition is that mind wandering is when an individual's thoughts shift away from the task at hand; it is often referred to as task-unrelated thoughts (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). What is not consistent, however, is the use of the term mind wandering. There are so many different terms used to describe task-unrelated thought that many authors include a list of the terms that have been used over the years (e.g., Christoff, 2011; Gruberger, Ben-Simon, Levkovitz, Zangen, & Hendler, 2011). Some of the terms that have been used in place of mind wandering include daydreaming, spontaneous thought, fantasy, zoning out, thought intrusions, task-irrelevant thoughts, perceptual decoupling, stimulus-independent thought, unconscious thought, internally generated thoughts, offline thought, incidental self-processing, undirected thought, and self-generated thought (see Christoff, 2011; McMillan et al., 2013; Schupak & Rosenthal, 2009; Smallwood & Schooler, 2006, 2015).

All of these terms are in some way a reference to task-unrelated thoughts. Some are perfect synonyms of each other, whereas others have subtle differences. Of these highly similar if not entirely identical terms, daydreaming seems to have a special, more complicated relationship with mind wandering than the others. Some authors see the two terms as interchangeable (e.g., Carciofo, Song, Du, Wang, & Zhang, 2017; Fox, Spreng, Ellamil, Andrews-Hanna, Christoff, 2015; Lindquist & McLean, 2011; Poerio & Smallwood, 2016), others acknowledge the similarities but maintain a minor, though unspecified, distinction (e.g., Berntsen, Rubin, & Salgado, 2015; Christoff, 2011; Marcusson-Clavertz, Cardeña, & Terhune, 2016 ), and some refer to mind wandering as a type of daydreaming or vice versa (e.g., Brown, 1927; Klinger, Henning, & Janssen, 2009; Zedelius & Schooler, 2015). With few exceptions, however, it seems that daydreaming and mind wandering are close enough to the same cognitive state that they can be used in tandem if not interchangeably. The use of the term mind wandering over daydreaming is more common in recent research (McMillan et al., 2013). Perhaps, it is because mind wondering carries a broader connotation than daydreaming. Perhaps, it is because of the growth of the area of mindfulness, and mind wandering therefore provides a more linguistically symmetrical counterbalance than daydreaming. Whatever the reason, though there may be a difference, these terms are too similar and too frequently used interchangeably in the literature to be considered distinct. Therefore, any previous references in the literature to task-unrelated thoughts, either as mind wandering or daydreaming, should be considered the same thing. Using mind wandering as the preferred term moving forward will not only help to eliminate the confusion between daydreaming and mind wandering but also eliminate the need for the litany of synonyms referenced earlier.

This first step may cause some disagreement, but it is an important one in clarifying the language and simplifying communication. By choosing to use the term mind wandering from this point forward, nothing from the past has been dismissed or changed. It marks an intentional shift, a deliberate unification in the language.

Having established what mind wandering encompasses, the next step is to identify its main components. To best accomplish this task, the literature was reviewed to identify the various elements referenced as comprising mind wandering. These include both major aspects and secondary factors less consistently used that may further refine how mind wandering is evaluated. As with mind wandering itself, many of these concepts are referred to by multiple names in the literature.

Creating a framework for these elements makes it easier to evaluate and discuss mind wandering more systematically, comprehensively, and consistently. Two of the major factors relevant to most, if not all, types of mind wandering are intentionality (if the mind wandering is deliberate or spontaneous) and plausibility (how close the mind wandering is to reality). The secondary elements that may not apply to all situations are time (future- or past-oriented thoughts), purpose (if the mind wandering involves planning or merely pondering), focus (self- or others-oriented thoughts), and valence (positive or negative). Each of these elements of mind wandering will be explored in greater detail later.

Building the framework

With many aspects of mind wandering, there is not a hard line between areas, but rather a nebulous overlap between each group. The fluid shifts in the stream of consciousness make the lines between each region more of a transitional gradient than a clear delineation. Though the boarders between categories can be hazy and indistinct, there are times when a category can be assigned clearly and with confidence. Rather than consider these categories a method for absolute classification, they should be seen as a continuum.

The first level of distinction is intentionality or whether the mind wandering is deliberate (intentional) or spontaneous (unintentional). Of course, categorizing mind wandering by intention is not revolutionary. An assumption commonly made in the literature is that mind wandering is inherently spontaneous; however, more recent research suggests that it may be both spontaneous and deliberate (Seli, Carriere, & Smilek, 2015; Seli, Risko, & Smilek, 2016). The reasons for spontaneous mind wandering are extensive and at times overlap significantly with those given for deliberate mind wandering. Individuals may deliberately choose to engage in mind wandering for numerous reasons such as alleviating boredom, planning future events, entertaining one's self, or developing inspiration (Mooneyham & Schooler, 2013). Both spontaneous mind wandering and deliberate mind wandering are associated with reduced task performance (Seli, Wammes, Risko, & Smilek, 2016). However, spontaneous mind wandering is more likely to involve negative thoughts, whereas deliberate mind wandering is more likely to be associated with positive thoughts (Zedelius & Schooler, 2015).

Along with intentionality, there is often an acknowledgment that the content of a mind wandering session is made of events which have varying degrees of probability of taking place (Singer, 1975, p. 3). The plausibility level of a mind wandering session is based on its relationship with reality. The scale goes from absolutely real on one end to impossibly fanciful on the other end. Episodes considered closer to reality contain content related to actual real-world events in the individual's life. These events are currently happening or are in the immediate future, such as thinking of plans for the upcoming weekend, contemplating the schedule of drivers for next week's carpool, or deciding the safest method for cleaning out the gutters. Episodes in this category could produce realistic simulations that lead to practical solutions and save time by being a substitution for actual trial and error.

Episodes that fall near the halfway point on the reality scale contain content that is within the realm of possibility, but there is no immediate indication that the circumstances will occur. Examples include thinking about asking the bartender at the local pub on a date, thinking of a clever retort for a conversation that has already happened [l'esprit de l'escalier],