The Crusade against NVP-BGJ398 And The Ways To Winning It

Then move to the second and then the third word on the screen and do the same. Sometimes people find it difficult or strange to ��search systematically,�� but we would like you to try your best. Remember, it is very critical for this experiment that you actively and systematically search for the answer.�� All participants were presented with 48 CRA problems split into two blocks of 24 (see Table ?Table22 for the stimulus materials). The problems were presented in randomized order, and the presentation format of the problems was the same as in Study 1. At the end of the task, participants in the instruction condition were asked to report on a 7-point scale how natural they found each problem-solving approach and how effective they thought each approach was. Finally, we again administered the MAAS (Brown and Ryan, 2003). Table 2 Compound remote associate problems used in Study 2. Results Main FK228 analyses Predicting accuracy and error types from MAAS scores Reliability of the MAAS in this sample was high (Cronbach��s alpha = 0.90). We performed regression analyses to test whether MAAS scores predicted accuracy and error types in the different conditions. First, in the control group, we found that greater MAAS scores predicted lower accuracy, �� = -0.43, t(32) = -2.63, p = 0.01 (see Figure ?Figure22). MAAS scored did not significantly predict errors of commission, �� = 0.28, t(31) = 1.61, p = 0.12, or omission, �� = 0.08, t(31) = 0.44, p = 0.66. FIGURE 2 Regression lines illustrating the relationship between mindfulness scores and accuracy for CRA problems in the control condition, following insight instructions, and following analytic instructions. Next, we tested our specific hypothesis that individual differences in the tendency to mind wander or be mindful differently predict creative performance depending on the problem-solving style used to approach a problem. Following analytic strategy instructions, higher MAAS scores predicted greater accuracy �� = 0.27, t(62) = 2.21, p = 0.03 (see Figure ?Figure22). Moreover, higher MAAS scores predicted reduced commission errors, �� = -0.29, t(64) = -1.39, p = 0.02, and were unrelated to omission errors, �� = 0.10, t(64) = 0.82, p = 0.42. Following insight instructions, MAAS scores were unrelated to accuracy, �� = 0.09, t(62) = 0.72, p = 0.47 (see Figure ?Figure22). Moreover, higher MAAS scores predicted reduced commission errors, �� = -0.26, t(64) = -2.18, p = 0.03, but increased errors of omission, �� = 0.30, t(64) = 2.47, p = 0.02. Additional analyses Effects of instructions on performance Because using explicit instructions to induce distinct problem-solving approaches is a novel methodological approach in the context of creative problem solving, we examined how participants in the instruction group evaluated the two problem-solving approaches and whether instructions affected accuracy on the attempted CRA problems.