Testing Conditions and Creative Performance: Meta-Analyses of the impact of Time Limits and Instructions

This study attempts to clarify the effects of varying testing conditions on creative performance in divergent thinking and product-based tasks. Two meta-analyses, one for time limits (short vs. long) and one for instructions (standard vs. explicit), were conducted. Moderator analyses were performed to examine whether the effects of time limits and instructions differ by measurement method, domain of creative performance, gender, study’s country of origin, educational level, study quality, and scoring method of originality. It was also investigated whether the effects of time limits vary depending on whether long time condition is timed or untimed, and whether the effects of instructions vary under timed versus untimed conditions. A total of 57 effect sizes (12 studies) for time limits and 165 effect sizes (38 studies) for instructions were analyzed using a meta-analytic three-level model. The time limits meta-analysis showed that long time limits (vs. short time limits) significantly enhanced creative performance, with smaller effects in studies from the USA (vs. non-USA). Analyses on divergent thinking indicators showed that long time limits (vs. short time limits) yielded higher originality scores, with no significant differences for fluency or flexibility. Long time limits showed greater effects on fluency and flexibility in timed (vs. untimed) long conditions. The instructions meta-analysis revealed that explicit (vs. standard) instructions significantly enhanced creative performance. An examination of divergent thinking indicators showed that explicit (vs. standard) instructions resulted in higher originality scores, with no significant differences for fluency or flexibility. Explicit instructions demonstrated larger effects on originality in non-college (vs. college) subjects, as well as in untimed (vs. timed) conditions.

Publication year:2020

BOF-keylabel:yes

IOF-keylabel:yes

BOF-publication weight:10

CSS-citation score:4

Authors from:Higher Education

Accessibility:Open