Running head: CREATIVITY Now the Left Brain Knows what the Right Brain is Doing: The Effects of Bilateral Eye-Movements and Handedness on a Creative Measure

The current study investigated the potential effects of bilateral eye movements (BEM) and handedness on creativity measured by the Alternate Uses Test. BEM may increase the state interaction between the left and right cerebral hemispheres, whereas handedness indicates individual differences in trait interhemispheric interaction (IHI). Based on the research reviewed, increases in IHI may enhance creativity. In order to test my hypothesis that IHI fosters creative thinking I randomly assigned participants into two different groups. Those assigned to the experimental group performed a BEM task for 30s and a control group performed a similar task, also for 30s, which does not involve BEM. Following their respective tasks, both groups completed the Alternate Uses Test and their relative creativity was compared. Participants also completed a handedness measure, where it was predicted that weak-handers will be more creative than strong-handers. Results indicate no effect of BEM on creativity but that handedness had significant effects on creativity, such that weak-handers significantly outperformed strong-handers on the Alternate Uses Test. Now the Left Brain Knows What the Right Brain is Doing: The Effects of Bilateral Eye-Movements and Handedness on a Creative Measure The creative process, although epitomized by a broad spectrum of brilliant individuals ranging from Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci to Oscar-winning actor, Christopher Walken, is a process employed by everyone in their daily endeavors. For decades creativity has garnered much attention in the field of psychology (for reviews see Finke, Ward & Smith, 1992; Runco, 2006; Simonton, 2004; and Sternberg, 1998). Guilford (1950) is frequently credited for spurring the empirical study of creativity and many have followed his lead but the creative process is not yet fully understood. Freyd (1994) suggests that subjective limitations of case studies and the inability of psychometrics to reconcile the diverse, qualitative nature of creativity with its own objective, quantitative methodology, may be factors that contribute to the ambiguity surrounding the topic. Despite the difficulty of studying creativity, several researchers have done so systematically and have made significant contributions to our understanding of individual difference, cognitive and neurological influences on the creative process. Cognitive psychologists such as Finke et al. (1992), suggest that there is no singular or defining process of creativity but that various combinations of ordinary processes moderate the creative process. They assert that the generativity and the assessment of value necessary for judging appropriateness are the primary processes of creativity and that both are present in the linguistic abilities of the average individual. They suggest that generativity is evident in everyone's ability to use language to form novel combinations of variables under the governance of a relatively small set of rules. They cite the goal-oriented nature of communicative language as support for the notion that assessment of utility is also a mundane process. Extending this notion, Dietrich (2004) suggests that the neural circuitry underlying creative proficiency in information processing is, in fact, the same circuitry that is responsible for the noncreative processing of the same information. The commonality between creative and mundane processes observed in cognitive and neural processes suggests that any neurologically intact individual should be capable of creativity. Because of logistical problems in studying creativity through case studies of extraordinary individuals and limitations of the inferences that can be drawn, discussed by Freyd (1994), it is, perhaps, more informative to study creativity as it occurs in a normal population. Importantly, findings are more likely to generalize and benefit a larger number of people. Several researchers have developed and employed measures of creativity that have allowed them to study the subject from a psychometric approach. These measures can be divided into tests of two different types of thinking: convergent and divergent. Convergent thinking is that which requires the individual to 'converge' on a single correct answer. Some tests of convergent thinking include the Remote Associates Test (Mednick, 1962) which requires participants to find the one word that relates three words presented to them (e.g., problem: rat, blue, cottage; solution: cheese). A revised and much larger version of this test was developed by Bowden and Jung-Beeman (2003) that required participants to find the compound associate word that was shared by the three words presented (e.g., problem: cottage swiss cake; solution: cheese). In contrast, divergent thinking is a style of thought that requires the individual to explore several different perspectives, producing an array of potential answers, situated on a gradient of utility. Guilford (1962) and Torrance (1974) developed batteries of tests to measure divergent thinking. Although the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking has been the most widely used measure of creativity (Khatena, 1989), the current study will employ an adaptation of Guilford's Alternate Uses Test (i.e., Christensen, Guilford, Merrifield, & Wilson, 1960). The Alternate Uses Test requires individuals to generate as many uses as possible for household items (e.g., paper-clip, brick, newspaper). The Alternate Uses Test is very similar to Torrance's (1974) Unusual Uses Test, which has been shown to have strong test-retest reliability (Treffinger, 1985), and predictive validity for adult achievements (Torrance, 1988). Furthermore, Martindale (1999) suggests that the Alternate Uses Test is a pure measure of the novelty and utility associated with creativity. As a result of these findings I have selected an adaptation of the Alternate Uses Test to be used as the measure of creativity in the current study. The adaptation of the Alternate Uses Test used in the current study was obtained from Chamorro-Premuzic (2006) and requires participants to create as many uses as possible within a one-minute time range for 20 items. This test measures creativity in terms of fluency, originality, elaboration, flexibility and appropriateness, which produces five, highly inter-correlated subscores. This version is most advantageous to this study's secondary pursuit of exploring the duration of the effect of bilateral eye-movements (BEM). Its usefulness in this pursuit is supported by the large number of items and short duration of the time allocated to each item. This will allow me to plot the course of the effect in a precise fashion. Christman, Propper and Dion (2004) observed differences on a 90 sec. memory task, but did not test a longer timeframe. To date, there is no empirical research that outlines the length of this effect. Accordingly, the current study had no a priori predictions regarding the duration of the effect. Within the previous two decades, findings from neuropsychology, neuroscience, and behavioral neuroscience have revealed cerebral asymmetries for creative processes. The work of Gazzaniga, Bogen and Sperry (1962) on split-brain patients inspired countless researchers to explore cerebral asymmetries. Split-brain patients have had their corpus callossum severed to alleviate intractable epilepsy. This procedure severs communication between the left and right hemispheres. Studies on split-brain patients have made clear that the two cerebral hemispheres are functionally different, and also that communication between the two hemispheres is integral for many tasks (Gazzaniga, et al.,1962; Kitterle, 1995). Several researchers have suggested the right hemisphere (RH) to be the locus of creative thinking (Abeare, 2005; Beeman & Bowden, 2000; Ornstein, 1977; Springer & Deutsch 1981 and Weinstein, & Graves, 2002). Beeman et al. (2000) found that increased semantic activation in the RH is associated with increased performance on insight problems, a measure found to have positive correlations with other measures of creative thinking (Dallob & Dominowski, 1993; Schooler & Melcher, 1995). In explaining these findings Beeman, et al. suggested that the diffuse nature of activation in the RH is more conducive to recognizing the semantic overlap inherent in solutions to compound remote associate problems. Kwiatkowski (2002) found that increased activation in the RH, indicated by an electroencephalogram (EEG) was present during three creative tasks, including a divergent thinking task of imagining and writing a creative story. While RH processes are important for creativity, a growing body of evidence suggests that a