Le laboratoire a publi\u00e9 un article dans Creativity Research Journal. L’\u00e9tude montrent des r\u00e9sultats qui renforcent l’efficacit\u00e9 d’une intervention bas\u00e9e sur la r\u00e9troaction pour am\u00e9liorer la pens\u00e9e divergente.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nPrevious research has highlighted the benefits of real-time automated feedback in enhancing
originality in divergent thinking tasks. In this preregistered study, we sought to replicate these
findings, investigating whether improvements in creative ideation persist after feedback is discontinued,
and assess the impact on evaluation accuracy. A total of 230 participants were given three
divergent thinking tasks (Alternate Uses tests), with or without semantic distance feedback in the first
two trials. The third task was always performed without feedback. Participants were then asked to
rate the originality of the ideas they produced in this last trial. Their evaluations were compared
against originality scores calculated based on semantic distance and Large Language Models (LLM)
for converging evidence. The results aligned with previous findings, showing that feedback was
effective in improving overall levels of originality across the first two trials. Importantly, this effect
carried over to the third trial after feedback was discontinued. However, feedback did not enhance
evaluation accuracy, as participants in both conditions achieved relatively high levels of accuracy in
rating the originality of their own ideas. We offer possible explanations for this unexpected result and
discuss the study\u2019s findings in the broader context of metacognition.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n