Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Gestures help people think and can help problem solvers generate new ideas. We conducted two experiments exploring the self-oriented function of gesture in a novel domain: creative thinking. In Experiment 1, we explored the relationship between children’s spontaneous gesture production and their ability to generate novel uses for everyday items (alternative-uses task). There was a significant correlation between children’s creative fluency and their gesture production, and the majority of children’s gestures depicted an action on the target object. Restricting children from gesturing did not significantly reduce their fluency, however. In Experiment 2, we encouraged children to gesture, and this significantly boosted their generation of creative ideas. These findings demonstrate that gestures serve an important self-oriented function and can assist creative thinking.

Keywords

gestures creativity cognitive processes problem solving

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alibali

M. W.

Kita

(2010). Gesture highlights perceptually present information for speakers. Gesture, 10, 3–28.

Alibali

M. W.

Spencer

R. C.

Knox

Kita

(2011). Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychological Science, 22, 1138–1144.

Beilock

S. L.

Goldin-Meadow

(2010). Gesture changes thought by grounding it in action. Psychological Science, 21, 1605–1610.

Charles

R. E.

Runco

M. A.

(2001). Developmental trends in the evaluative and divergent thinking of children. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 417–437.

Chu

Kita

(2016). Co-thought and co-speech gestures are generated by the same action generation process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 257–270.

Dansky

J. L.

Silverman

I. W.

(1973). Effects of play on associative fluency in preschool-aged children. Developmental Psychology, 9, 38–43.

Dunn

L. M.

Dunn

D. M.

Styles

Sewell

(2009). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale III–3rd Edition. London, England: GL Assessment.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

Gilhooly

K. J.

Fioratou

Anthony

S. H.

Wynn

(2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 611–625.

10.

Goldenberg

Hagmann

(1998). Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 36, 581–589.

11.

Goldin-Meadow

Alibali

M. W.

(2013). Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 257–283.

12.

Goldin-Meadow

Nusbaum

Kelly

S. D.

Wagner

(2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12, 516–522.

13.

Guilford

J. P.

(1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Kim

K. H.

(2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285–295.

15.

Magnié

M. N.

Besson

Poncet

Dolisi

(2003). The Snodgrass and Vanderwart set revisited: Norms for object manipulability and for pictorial ambiguity of objects, chimeric objects, and nonobjects. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 521–560.

16.

McNeill

(1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 93, 350–371.

17.

Novack

M. A.

Congdon

E. L.

Hemani-Lopez

Goldin-Meadow

(2014). From action to abstraction: Using the hands to learn math. Psychological Science, 25, 903–910.

18.

Pine

K. J.

Gurney

D. J.

Fletcher

(2010). The semantic specificity hypothesis: When gestures do not depend upon the presence of a listener. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 169–178.

19.

Runco

M. A.

Okuda

S. M.

Thurston

B. J.

(1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 149–156.

20.

Salmon

J. P.

McMullen

P. A.

Filliter

J. H.

(2010). Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 82–95.

21.

Vingerhoets

Vandekerckhove

Honoré

Vandemaele

Achten

(2011). Neural correlates of pantomiming familiar and unfamiliar tools: Action semantics versus mechanical problem solving? Human Brain Mapping, 32, 905–918.

22.

Wilson

(1988). MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 6–10.

23.

Wolk

D. A.

Coslett

H. B.

Glosser

(2005). The role of sensory-motor information in object recognition: Evidence from category-specific visual agnosia. Brain & Language, 94, 131–146.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.29 MB

0.00 MB