REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/20155
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorSilvia, Paul J.-
dc.contributor.authorCotter, Katherine N.-
dc.contributor.authorChristensen, Alexander P.-
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-23T07:34:24Z-
dc.date.available2026-04-23T07:34:24Z-
dc.date.issued2024-
dc.identifier.citationCreativity. Theories – Research – Applications, Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2024, pp. 1-17pl
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/20155-
dc.description.abstractGenerating creative ideas takes time: the first idea to come to mind is usually obvious, and people need time to shift strategies, enact executive processes, and evaluate and revise an idea. The present research explored the role of time in creative humor production tasks, which give people a prompt and ask them to create a funny response. A sample of 152 young adults completed four joke stems prompts. Their response times were recorded, and the responses were judged for humor quality (funniness) by six independent judges and by the participants themselves. Mixed-effect models found that, at the within-person level, response time’s link to humor quality diverged for judges and participants. The judges’ ratings of funniness predicted longer response times (relatively funnier responses took longer to create), but participants’ self-ratings of their own responses predicted shorter response times (relatively funnier responses were created faster). Controlling for elaboration (quantified via word count of the response) diminished the effect of judgerated humor but not participant-rated humor. Taken to gether, the results suggest that the role of time in humor generation is complex: judges may be weighting elaboration more heavily when judging funniness, whereas participants may be weighting metacognitive cues like ease-of-generation when judging their own ideas.pl
dc.language.isoenpl
dc.publisherUniversity of Białystokpl
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Licensepl
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.subjecthumor productionpl
dc.subjectcreativitypl
dc.subjectresponse timepl
dc.subjectopenness to experiencepl
dc.subjectintelligencepl
dc.titleTime is a Funny Thing: Response Times and Humor Quality in a Creative Joke Production Taskpl
dc.typeArticlepl
dc.rights.holder© 2024 Paul J. Silvia, Katherine N. Cotter, Alexander P. Christensen, published by University of Białystokpl
dc.rights.holderThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Licensepl
dc.identifier.doi10.2478/ctra-2024-0001-
dc.description.EmailPaul J. Silvia: p_silvia@uncg.edupl
dc.description.AffiliationPaul J. Silvia - Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USApl
dc.description.AffiliationKatherine N. Cotter - Positive Psychology Center, University of Pennsylvania, USApl
dc.description.AffiliationAlexander P. Christensen - Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, USApl
dc.description.referencesAmir, O., & Biederman, I. (2016). The neural correlates of humor creativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00597pl
dc.description.referencesBates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01pl
dc.description.referencesBeaty, R.E., & Kenett, Y.N. (2023). Associative thinking at the core of creativity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(7), 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.04.004pl
dc.description.referencesBeaty, R.E., & Silvia, P.J. (2012). Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent thinking tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 309–319.pl
dc.description.referencesBeins, B.C., & O’Toole, S. M. (2010). Searching for the sense of humor: Stereotypes of ourselves and others. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v6i3.216.pl
dc.description.referencesBenedek, M., Beaty, R.E., Schacter, D.L., & Kenett, Y.N. (2023). The role of memory in creative ideation. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(4), 246–257.pl
dc.description.referencesCattell, R.B., & Cattell, A.K.S. (1961). Measuring intelligence with the Culture Fair Tests. Hogrefe.pl
dc.description.referencesChristensen, A.P., Silvia, P.J., Nusbaum, E.C., & Beaty, R.E. (2018). Clever people: Intelligence and humor production ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000109pl
dc.description.referencesDerks, P., & Hervas, D. (1988). Creativity in humor production: Quantity and quality in divergent thinking. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(1), 37–39. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334854pl
dc.description.referencesDumas, D., Organisciak, P., Maio, S., & Doherty, M. (2021). Four text-mining methods for measuring elaboration. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(2), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.471pl
dc.description.referencesEckes, T. (2011). Introduction to many-facet Rasch measurement. Peter Lang D. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3653-04844-5pl
dc.description.referencesEkstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Educational Testing Service.pl
dc.description.referencesFinke, R.A., Ward, T.B., & Smith, S.M. (1996). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. MIT Press.pl
dc.description.referencesForthmann, B., Holling, H., Zandi, N., Gerwig, A., Çelik, P., Storme, M., & Lubart, T. (2017). Missing creativity: The effect of cognitive workload on rater (dis-) agreement in subjective divergent-thinking scores. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 129–139.pl
dc.description.referencesForthmann, B., Oyebade, O., Ojo, A., Günther, F., & Holling, H. (2019). Application of latent semantic analysis to divergent thinking is biased by elaboration. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(4), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.240pl
dc.description.referencesFrith, E., Elbich, D.B., Christensen, A.P., Rosenberg, M.D., Chen, Q., Kane, M.J., Silvia, P.J., Seli, P., & Beaty, R.E. (2021). Intelligence and creativity share a common cognitive and neural basis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(4), 609–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000958pl
dc.description.referencesGeraci, M. (2014). Linear quantile mixed models: The lqmm Package for Laplace quantile regression. Journal of Statistical Software, 57, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v057.i13pl
dc.description.referencesGerver, C.R., Griffin, J.W., Dennis, N.A., & Beaty, R.E. (2023). Memory and creativity: A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between memory systems and creative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02303-4.pl
dc.description.referencesGilhooly, K.J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S.H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98(4), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2007.tb00467.xpl
dc.description.referencesGonthier, C., & Besançon, M. (2022). It is not always better to have more ideas: Serial order and the trade-off between fluency and elaboration in divergent thinking tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000485.pl
dc.description.referencesGreengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006.pl
dc.description.referencesHarrington, D.M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores1. Journal of Personality, 43(3), 434–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676494.1975.tb00715.x.pl
dc.description.referencesHowrigan, D. P., & MacDonald, K. B. (2008). Humor as a mental fitness indicator. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 147470490800600411. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600411pl
dc.description.referencesKaufman, J.C., Baer, J., Cropley, D.H., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Sinnett, S. (2013). Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 332–340.pl
dc.description.referencesKellner, R., & Benedek, M. (2017). The role of creative potential and intelligence for humor production. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 52–58.pl
dc.description.referencesKoller, M. (2016). robustlmm: An R package for robust estimation of linear mixed-effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 75, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v075.i06pl
dc.description.referencesKoppel, M.A., & Sechrest, L. (1970). A multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis of sense of humor. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000107.pl
dc.description.referencesKozbelt, A., & Nishioka, K. (2010). Humor comprehension, humor production, and insight: An exploratory study. Humor, 23(3), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2010.017.pl
dc.description.referencesLebuda, I., & Benedek, M. (2023). A systematic framework of creative metacognition. Physics of Life Reviews, 46, 161–181.pl
dc.description.referencesLong, H., & Wang, J. (2022). Dissecting reliability and validity evidence of subjective creativity assessment: A literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 34(3), 1399–1443.pl
dc.description.referencesMaio, S., Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Runco, M. (2020). Is the reliability of objective originality scores confounded by elaboration? Creativity Research Journal, 32(3), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1818492.pl
dc.description.referencesMasten, A.S. (1986). Humor and competence in school-aged children. Child Development, 57(2), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130601.pl
dc.description.referencesMcCrae, R.R., & Costa, Jr., Paul T. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.116.pl
dc.description.referencesNezlek, J. (2012). Diary methods for social and personality psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446287903pl
dc.description.referencesNusbaum, E.C., & Silvia, P.J. (2017). What are funny people like? Exploring the crossroads of humor ability and openness to experience. In G.J. Feist, R. Reiter-Palmon, & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research (pp. 294–322). Cambridge University Press.pl
dc.description.referencesNusbaum, E.C., Silvia, P.J., & Beaty, R.E. (2014). Ready, set, create: What instructing people to “be creative” reveals about the meaning and mechanisms of divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 423–432.pl
dc.description.referencesNusbaum, E.C., Silvia, P.J., & Beaty, R.E. (2017). Ha ha? Assessing individual differences in humor production ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Arts, and Creativity, 11, 231–241.pl
dc.description.referencesOmwake, L. (1937). A study of sense of humor: Its relation to sex, age, and personal characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 21(6), 688–704. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055199.pl
dc.description.referencesPrimi, R., Silvia, P.J., Jauk, E., & Benedek, M. (2019). Applying many-facet Rasch modeling in the assessment of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000230pl
dc.description.referencesPuente-Díaz, R. (2023). Metacognitive feelings as a source of information for the creative process: A conceptual exploration. Journal of Intelligence, 11(3), 49.pl
dc.description.referencesPuente-Díaz, R., & Cavazos-Arroyo, J. (2022a). Creative self-efficacy and metacognitive feelings as sources of information when generating, evaluating, and selecting creative ideas: A metacognitive perspective. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(4), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.557pl
dc.description.referencesPuente-Díaz, R., & Cavazos-Arroyo, J. (2022b). Evaluative self-efficacy and its potential role in the evaluation and selection of ideas: A metacognitive perspective. Creativity: Theories—Research—Applications, 9(2), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.2478/ctra-2022-0010pl
dc.description.referencesPuente-Díaz, R., Cavazos-Arroyo, J., & Puerta-Sierra, L. (2021). Idea generation, selection, and evaluation: A metacognitive approach. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(4), 1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.505pl
dc.description.referencesR Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.orgpl
dc.description.referencesReiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 144–152.pl
dc.description.referencesRobitzsch, A., Kiefer, T., & Wu, M. (2022). TAM: Test Analysis Modules. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TAMpl
dc.description.referencesRuch, W., & Heintz, S. (2019). Humor production and creativity: Overview and recommendations. In S.R. Luria, J. Baer, & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), Creativity and humor (pp. 1–42). Academic Press.pl
dc.description.referencesSaid-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2020). Testing conditions and creative performance: Meta-analyses of the impact of time limits and instructions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000244pl
dc.description.referencesShin, H., Cotter, K.N., Christensen, A.P., & Silvia, P.J. (2020). Creative fixation is no laughing matter: The effects of funny and unfunny examples on humor production. Journal of Creative Behavior, 54, 487–494.pl
dc.description.referencesSilvia, P.J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative ideas? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 139–146.pl
dc.description.referencesSilvia, P.J., Greengross, G., Cotter, K.N., Christensen, A.P., & Gredlein, J.M. (2021). If you’re funny and you know it: Personality, gender, and people’s ratings of their attempts at humor. Journal of Research in Personality, 92, 104089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104089.pl
dc.description.referencesSun, C., Wang, M., Zhou, X., Liu, G., & Zhou, Z. (2022). Dynamic cognitive processes of humor generation: Activation and inhibition of information. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-02201752-1pl
dc.description.referencesSutu, A., Phetmisy, C.N., & Damian, R.I. (2021). Open to laugh: The role of openness to experience in humor production ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000298pl
dc.description.referencesWang, J., & Long, H. (2022). Reexamining subjective creativity assessments in science tasks: An application of the rater-mediated assessment framework and many-facet Rasch model. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000470pl
dc.description.referencesYanagida, T. (2023). misty: Miscellaneous functions “T. Yanagida.” https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mistypl
dc.identifier.eissn2354-0036-
dc.description.volume11pl
dc.description.issue1pl
dc.description.firstpage1pl
dc.description.lastpage17pl
dc.identifier.citation2Creativity. Theories – Research – Applicationspl
Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2024, Vol. 11, Issue 1

Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons