IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mse/cesdoc/23002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Creative Cognition as a Bandit Problem

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper characterizes creative cognition as a multi-armed bandit problem involving a trade-off between exploration in sequential decisions from experience taking place in novel uncertain environments. Creative cognition implements an efficient learning process in this kind of dynamic decision. Special emphasis is put on the optimal sequencing of divergent and convergent behavior by showing that divergence must be inhibited at one point to converge toward creative behavior so that excessive divergence is counterproductive. We test this hypothesis in two behavioral experiments, using both novel and well-known tasks and precise measures of individual differences in creative potential in middle and high school students. Results in both studies confirmed that a task-dependent mix of divergence and convergence predicted high performance in a production task and better satisfaction in a consumption task, but exclusively in novel uncertain environments. These predictions were maintained after controlling for gender, personality, incentives, and other factors. As hypothesized, creative cognition was shown to be necessary for high performance under the appropriate conditions. However, it was not necessary for getting high grades in a traditional school system

Suggested Citation

  • Noémi Berlin & Jan Dul & Marco Gazel & Louis L vy-Garboua & Todd Lubart, 2023. "Creative Cognition as a Bandit Problem," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 23002, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
  • Handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:23002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://mse.univ-paris1.fr/pub/mse/CES2023/23002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03972871
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noémi Berlin & Jean-Louis Tavani & Maud Beasançon, 2016. "An exploratory study of creativity, personality and schooling achievement," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 536-556, September.
    2. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    3. Levy-Garboua, Louis & Loheac, Youenn & Fayolle, Bertrand, 2006. "Preference formation, school dissatisfaction and risky behavior of adolescents," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 165-183, February.
    4. Giuseppe Attanasi & Michela Chessa & Sara Gil-Gallen & Patrick Llerena, 2021. "A survey on experimental elicitation of creativity in economics," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 273-324.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    6. Karwowski, Maciej & Kaufman, James C. & Lebuda, Izabela & Szumski, Grzegorz & Firkowska-Mankiewicz, Anna, 2017. "Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: The necessary condition approach," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 36-44.
    7. Gary Charness & Daniela Grieco, 2019. "Creativity and Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 454-496.
    8. Bill Lucas & Guy Claxton & Ellen Spencer, 2013. "Progression in Student Creativity in School: First Steps Towards New Forms of Formative Assessments," OECD Education Working Papers 86, OECD Publishing.
    9. Noémi Berlin & Jean-Louis Tavani & Maud Besançon, 2016. "An exploratory study of creativity, personality and schooling achievement," Post-Print hal-01392470, HAL.
    10. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    11. Lipshitz, Raanan & Strauss, Orna, 1997. "Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 149-163, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Charness, Gary & Le Bihan, Yves & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2024. "Mindfulness training, cognitive performance and stress reduction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 207-226.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giuseppe Attanasi & Michela Chessa & Carlo Ciucani & Sara Gil Gallen, 2020. "Children's GrI-Creativity: Effects of Limited Resources in Creative Drawing," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-34, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    3. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    4. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    5. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    6. Arno Riedl & Paul Smeets, 2017. "Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(6), pages 2505-2550, December.
    7. Katharina Laske & Nathalie Römer & Marina Schröder, 2024. "Piece-Rate Incentives and Idea Generation – An Experimental Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 11594, CESifo.
    8. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Riedel, Nadine & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2013. "Asymmetric obligations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 67-80.
    10. Marc A. Ragin & Benjamin L. Collier & Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2021. "The effect of information disclosure on demand for high‐load insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(1), pages 161-193, March.
    11. Hermansson, Cecilia, 2018. "Can self-assessed financial risk measures explain and predict bank customers’ objective financial risk?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 226-240.
    12. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    13. Arslan, Ruben C. & Brümmer, Martin & Dohmen, Thomas & Drewelies, Johanna & Hertwig, Ralph & Wagner, Gert G., 2020. "How people know their risk preference," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10.
    14. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    15. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    16. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Obst, Cosima & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2023. "Risk preferences and training investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 668-686.
    17. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Giuseppe Attanasi & Ylenia Curci & Patrick Llerena & Adriana Carolina Pinate & Maria del Pino Ramos-Sosa & Giulia Urso, 2019. "Looking at Creativity from East to West: Risk Taking and Intrinsic Motivation in Socially and Culturally Diverse Countries," GREDEG Working Papers 2019-21, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    19. John Gibson & David Johnson, 0. "Breaking Bad: When Being Disadvantaged Incentivizes (Seemingly) Risky Behavior," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 0, pages 1-28.
    20. Jan-Erik Loennqvist & Markku Verkasalo & Gari Walkowitz & Philipp C. Wichardt, 2011. "Measuring Individual Risk Attitudes in the Lab: Task or Ask? An Empirical Comparison," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 02-03, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Creative cognition; Multi-armed bandit problem; Exploration-exploitation trade-off; Individual differences in creative potential; Adolescents' behavior; Necessary Condition Analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • I25 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Education and Economic Development
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • Z10 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:23002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucie Label (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cenp1fr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.