Search

Abstract Identifying ways to enable people to reach their creative potential is a core goal of creativity research with implications for education and professional attainment. Recently, we identified a potential barrier to creative achievement: creativity anxiety (i.e., anxiety specific to creative thinking). Initial work found that creativity anxiety is associated with fewer real-world creative achievements. However, the more proximal impacts of creativity anxiety remain unexplored. In particular, understanding how to overcome creativity anxiety requires understanding how creativity anxiety may or may not impact creative cognitive performance, and how it may relate to state-level anxiety and effort while completing creative tasks. The present study sought to address this gap by measuring creativity anxiety alongside several measures of creative performance, while concurrently surveying state-level anxiety and effort. Results indicated that creativity anxiety was, indeed, predictive of poor creative performance, but only on some of the tasks included. We also found that creativity anxiety predicted both state anxiety and effort during creative performance. Interestingly, state anxiety and effort did not explain the associations between creativity anxiety and creative performance. Together, this work suggests that creativity anxiety can often be overcome in the performance of creative tasks, but likewise points to increased state anxiety and effort as factors that may make creative performance and achievement fragile in more demanding real-world contexts.

Abstract Math-anxious people consistently underperform in math. The most widely accepted explanation for why this underperformance occurs is that math-anxious people experience heightened anxiety when faced with math, and this in-the-moment anxiety interferes with performance. Surprisingly, this explanation has not been tested directly. Here, using both self-report and physiological indices of anxiety, we directly test how much in-the-moment anxiety explains math-anxious underperformance. Results indicate that in-the-moment anxiety indeed explains why math-anxious people underperform—but only partially, suggesting a need to seriously consider alternative mechanisms. Results also showed that while some highly math-anxious individuals—those with high levels of heart rate variability—experienced less in-the-moment anxiety, they nevertheless performed no better at math. For these individuals, math-anxious underperformance must occur for reasons unrelated to in-the-moment anxiety. More broadly, our findings point to substantial individual heterogeneity in the mechanisms underlying math-anxious underperformance. Accounting for this mechanistic heterogeneity may prove vital for optimally boosting math performance in math-anxious individuals.

Women reliably perform worse than men on measures of spatial ability, particularly those involving mental rotation. At the same time, females also report higher levels of spatial anxiety than males. What remains unclear, however, is whether and in what ways gender differences in these cognitive and affective aspects of spatial processing may be interrelated. Here, we tested for robust gender differences across six different datasets in spatial ability and spatial anxiety (N = 1257, 830 females). Further, we tested for bidirectional mediation effects. We identified indirect relations between gender and spatial skills through spatial anxiety, as well as between gender and spatial anxiety through spatial skills. In the gender → spatial anxiety → spatial ability direction, spatial anxiety explained an average of 22.4% of gender differences in spatial ability. In the gender → spatial ability → spatial anxiety direction, spatial ability explained an average of 25.9% of gender differences in spatial anxiety. Broadly, these results support a strong relation between cognitive and affective factors when explaining gender differences in the spatial domain. However, the nature of this relation may be more complex than has been assumed in previous literature. On a practical level, the results of this study caution the development of interventions to address gender differences in spatial processing which focus primarily on either spatial anxiety or spatial ability until such further research can be conducted. Our results also speak to the need for future longitudinal work to determine the precise mechanisms linking cognitive and affective factors in spatial processing.

Abstract Anxieties that are specific to a particular kind of thinking have been demonstrated for a variety of cognitive domains. One hypothesized consequence of these anxieties is reduced interest in pursuing activities and, consequentially, careers that involve the type of thinking in question in an effort to avoid engaging in that type of thinking. There is little research addressing this avoidance hypothesis, possibly because it is difficult to categorize pursuits as objectively “creative” or “spatial”. Here, we measured the perceptions that participants, themselves, hold about how much pursuits (careers and activities) involve different types of thinking. We developed a novel framework for calculating “affinity coefficients”, within-person associations between perceived cognitive involvement and interest across several pursuits. Having a negative creative affinity coefficient, for instance, means being less interested in pursuits the more they are perceived as involving creative thinking. Results across three separate cognitive domains (creativity, mathematics, and spatial reasoning) reliably showed that higher anxiety in a domain uniquely predicted a lower affinity coefficient in that domain, providing consistent evidence of avoidance tendencies linked to cognition-specific anxieties. These findings suggest that feeling anxious about particular types of thinking may play a significant role in shaping our interests, both big and small.

Abstract Math anxiety is widely considered a potential barrier to success in STEM. Current thinking holds that math anxiety is directly linked to avoidance of and underperformance in STEM domains. However, past evidence supporting these claims is limited in important ways. Perhaps most crucially, it is possible that math anxiety predicts STEM outcomes merely as a proxy for poor math skills. Here, we tested the link between math anxiety and subsequent STEM outcomes by measuring math anxiety, math ability, and several covariates in 183 first-semester university students. We then tracked students’ STEM avoidance and achievement through four years at university via official academic transcripts. Results showed that math anxiety predicted both a reduction in how many STEM courses students took and, separately (i.e., controlling for one another), lower STEM grades. Crucially, these associations held after controlling for math ability (and other covariates). That math anxiety predicts math-related academic achievement independently of Math Ability suggests that, contrary to current thinking, math anxiety’s effects on academic performance likely operate via mechanisms other than negatively affecting math ability. Beyond this, we show evidence that math anxiety can account for associations between math ability and STEM outcomes, suggesting that past links between math ability and real-world outcomes may, in fact, be at least partially explainable by attitudes toward math. These findings provide clear impetus for developing and testing interventions that target math anxiety specifically and suggest that focusing on math ability without additional attention to math anxiety may fail to optimally boost STEM outcomes.

While a recent upsurge in the application of neuroimaging methods to creative cognition has yielded encouraging progress toward understanding the neural underpinnings of creativity, the neural basis of barriers to creativity are as yet unexplored. Here, we report the first investigation into the neural correlates of one such recently identified barrier to creativity: anxiety specific to creative thinking, or creativity anxiety (Daker et al., 2019). We employed a machine-learning technique for exploring relations between functional connectivity and behavior (connectome-based predictive modeling; CPM) to investigate the functional connections underlying creativity anxiety. Using whole-brain resting-state functional connectivity data, we identified a network of connections or “edges” that predicted individual differences in creativity anxiety, largely comprising connections within and between regions of the executive and default networks and the limbic system. We then found that the edges related to creativity anxiety identified in one sample generalize to predict creativity anxiety in an independent sample. We additionally found evidence that the network of edges related to creativity anxiety were largely distinct from those found in previous work to be related to divergent creative ability (Beaty et al., 2018). In addition to being the first work on the neural correlates of creativity anxiety, this research also included the development of a new Chinese-language version of the Creativity Anxiety Scale, and demonstrated that key behavioral findings from the initial work on creativity anxiety are replicable across cultures and languages.

Children’s ability to map numbers into a spatial context has been shown to be a powerful predictor of math performance. Here, we investigate how three types of cognitive abilities – approximate number processing ability, symbolic number processing ability, and non-numerical cognitive abilities – predict 0–100 number-line estimation performance in first graders. While each type of measure predicts number-line performance when considered individually, when considered together, only symbolic number comparison and non-verbal reasoning predicted unique variance in number-line estimation. Moreover, the relation between symbolic number comparison and number-line ability was stronger for male students than for female students, suggesting potential gender differences in the way boys and girls accomplish mapping numbers into space. These results suggest that number-line estimation ability is largely reflective of the precision with which symbolic magnitudes are represented (at least among boys). Our findings therefore suggest that promoting children’s understanding of symbolic, rather than non-symbolic, numerical magnitudes may help children learn better from number-lines in the classroom.