| Literature DB >> 35719584 |
Hao Chen1,2, Chao Liu2,3, Fang Zhou4, Chao-Hung Chiang5, Yi-Lang Chen6, Kan Wu3,7, Ding-Hau Huang8, Chia-Yih Liu9, Wen-Ko Chiou6,9,10.
Abstract
Creativity is so important for social and technological development that people are eager to find an easy way to enhance it. Previous studies have shown that mindfulness has significant effects on positive affect (PA), working memory capacity, cognitive flexibility and many other aspects, which are the key to promoting creativity. However, there are few studies on the relationship between mindfulness and creativity. The mechanism between mindfulness and creativity is still uncertain. Meditation is an important method of mindfulness training, but for most people who do not have the basic training, it's difficult to master how to get into a state of mindfulness. Animation has been shown by many studies to help improve cognition and is often used as a guiding tool. Using animation as the guiding carrier of meditation is more convenient and easier to accept. Therefore, this study adopted the intervention method of animation-guided meditation, aiming to explore: (1) the effect of animation-guided meditation on enhancing creativity; (2) the role of flow and emotion in the influence of mindfulness on creativity. We advertised recruitment through the internal network of a creative industrial park, and the final 95 eligible participants were divided into two groups: animation (n = 48) and audio (n = 47) guided meditation. The animation group was given an animated meditation intervention, and the audio group was given an audio meditation intervention, both interventions were performed 3 times a week and last for 8 weeks.Entities:
Keywords: animation guided meditation; creativity; flow; mindfulness; positive affect
Year: 2022 PMID: 35719584 PMCID: PMC9204527 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894337
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Research model.
Demographic characteristics of participants.
| Characteristic | Total | Animation | Audio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (SD) | 34.57 (8.13) | 33.72 (8.45) | 35.41(7.96) | |
| Gender | Male (%) | 71 (75%) | 36 (75%) | 35 (74%) |
| Female (%) | 24 (25%) | 12 (25%) | 12 (26%) | |
| Education | Associate degree (%) | 31 (33%) | 16 (33%) | 15 (32%) |
| Bachelor degree (%) | 46 (48%) | 23 (48%) | 23 (49%) | |
| Master degree (%) | 18 (19%) | 9 (19%) | 9 (19%) |
Figure 2Procedure flow chart.
Descriptive statistics.
| Group | Measure | Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | ||
| Animation | MAAS | 3.277(0.745) | 3.986(0.675) |
| PA | 2.940(0.817) | 3.440(0.730) | |
| NA | 2.261(0.979) | 1.815(0.843) | |
| DFS-2 | 3.236(0.754) | 3.504(0.749) | |
| WCS | 3.261(0.794) | 3.719(0.654) | |
| CLS | 4.689(0.687) | 4.281(0.885) | |
| Audio | MAAS | 3.311(0.630) | 3.624(0.568) |
| PA | 3.195(0.713) | 3.368(0.663) | |
| NA | 2.308(0.777) | 1.941(0.623) | |
| DFS-2 | 3.320(0.656) | 3.555(0.528) | |
| WCS | 3.287(0.649) | 3.436(0.548) | |
| CLS | 4.743(0.682) | 4.679(0.701) | |
ANOVA results.
| Measure | Variable |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAAS | Time*** | 30.875 | < 0.001 | 0.249 |
| Group | 2.740 | 0.101 | 0.029 | |
| Time ×Group* | 4.636 | 0.034 | 0.047 | |
| PA | Time*** | 17.434 | < 0.001 | 0.158 |
| Group | 0.511 | 0.476 | 0.005 | |
| Time ×Group* | 4.119 | 0.045 | 0.042 | |
| NA | Time*** | 23.590 | < 0.001 | 0.202 |
| Group | 0.357 | 0.552 | 0.004 | |
| Time ×Group | 0.227 | 0.635 | 0.002 | |
| DFS-2 | Time** | 10.442 | 0.002 | 0.101 |
| Group | 0.338 | 0.563 | 0.004 | |
| Time ×Group | 0.044 | 0.834 | <0.001 | |
| WCS | Time*** | 17.724 | < 0.001 | 0.160 |
| Group | 1.229 | 0.270 | 0.013 | |
| Time ×Group* | 4.601 | 0.035 | 0.047 | |
| CLS | Time* | 5.170 | 0.025 | 0.053 |
| Group* | 4.072 | 0.046 | 0.042 | |
| Time ×Group | 2.754 | 0.100 | 0.029 |
.
Figure 3Comparison of 6 measures between animation and audio group. Only significant differences are marked with *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Reliability and Convergent validity of constructs.
| Construct | Reliability | Convergent validity | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cronbach’s Alpha | CR | AVE | |
| MAAS | 0.940 | 0.946 | 0.541 |
| PA | 0.953 | 0.960 | 0.706 |
| NA | 0.970 | 0.973 | 0.783 |
| DFS-2 | 0.941 | 0.951 | 0.683 |
| WCS | 0.968 | 0.972 | 0.727 |
Inter-construct correlations and discriminant validity.
| DFS-2 | MAAS | NA | PA | WCS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DFS-2 | 0.826 | ||||
| MAAS | 0.528 | 0.736 | |||
| NA | −0.112 | −0.115 | 0.885 | ||
| PA | 0.712 | 0.634 | −0.156 | 0.840 | |
| WCS | 0.694 | 0.727 | −0.191 | 0.650 | 0.853 |
Theoretical effect sizes for R2 and f2.
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DFS-2 | MAAS | NA | PA | WCS | ||
| DFS-2 | 0.508 | 0.078 | 1.048 | 0.663 | ||
| MAAS | 1.031 | 0.131 | 0.476 | 0.697 | ||
| NA | 0.113 | 0.147 | ||||
| PA | 0.747 | 0.194 | ||||
| WCS | 0.836 | |||||
Path coefficients of research framework.
|
| SD | Confidence interval | Significance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.50% | 97.50% |
|
| |||
| Direct effects | ||||||
| DFS-2— > PA | 0.271 | 0.120 | 0.098 | 0.562 | 2.256 | 0.024 |
| DFS-2— > WCS | 0.627 | 0.074 | 0.526 | 0.819 | 9.046 | <0.001 |
| MAAS— > DFS | 0.470 | 0.153 | 0.167 | 0.731 | 3.079 | 0.002 |
| MAAS— > PA | 0.547 | 0.129 | 0.235 | 0.721 | 4.239 | <0.001 |
| MAAS— > WCS | 0.714 | 0.120 | 0.450 | 0.900 | 5.946 | <0.001 |
| PA — > WCS | 0.311 | 0.116 | 0.017 | 0.467 | 2.690 | 0.007 |
| MAAS— > PA— > WCS | 0.478 | 0.070 | 0.360 | 0.618 | 6.796 | <0.001 |
| MAAS— > DFS-2— > WCS | 0.523 | 0.081 | 0.359 | 0.656 | 6.466 | <0.001 |
| DFS-2— > PA— > WCS | 0.229 | 0.101 | 0.010 | 0.389 | 2.273 | 0.023 |
| MAAS— > DFS-2— > PA— > WCS | 0.163 | 0.069 | 0.007 | 0.277 | 2.373 | 0.018 |
| MAAS— > WCS | 0.908 | 0.096 | 0.683 | 1.042 | 9.461 | <0.001 |
| DFS-2— > WCS | 0.734 | 0.112 | 0.485 | 0.896 | 6.556 | <0.001 |
Figure 4Research framework. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.