Explore the vast range of titles available.

Humans regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism; they self-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. Parochial altruism has distinct survival functions, and the brain may have evolved to sustain and promote in-group cohesion and effectiveness and to ward off threatening out-groups. Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a \"tend and defend\" response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups.

Originality is a prerequisite for world-changing science and arts alike, but it cannot be taught. Or can it? Here, we show that a set of habits that are—surprisingly—shared among successful artists and scientists may catalyze creative output. We reveal three groups of such habits, each corresponding to a cluster of personality traits, shown to be shared by creative artists and scientists. The first habit group “embrace the unexpected” corresponds to the character trait “openness to new experiences” and encompasses tendencies to go ahead without a plan, collect diverse experiences, and take risks. The second group “create conditions for creation” links to the personality trait “autonomous” and encompasses simple habits such as making empty time and carrying a notebook. The third class of habits “break away from dogma” links to the shared personality trait “norm doubting” and stands for a strong drive to escape from established systems and also occasionally destroy part of one’s own work to break tunnel vision and start anew. Although personality traits are hard to change, the habits we found hint at techniques or skills that may be taught.

Despite decades of extensive research on creativity, the field still combats psychometric problems when measuring individual differences in creative ability and people’s potential to achieve real-world outcomes that are both original and useful. We think these seemingly technical issues have a conceptual origin. We therefore propose a minimal theory of creative ability (MTCA) to create a consistent conceptual theory to guide investigations of individual differences in creative ability. Building on robust theories and findings in creativity and individual differences research, our theory argues that creative ability, at a minimum, must include two facets: intelligence and expertise. So, the MTCA simply claims that whenever we do something creative, we use most of our cognitive abilities combined with relevant expertise to be creative. MTCA has important implications for creativity theory, measurement, and practice. However, the MTCA isn’t necessarily true; it is a minimal theory. We discuss and reject several objections to the MTCA.

An increasing number of healthy people use methylphenidate, a psychostimulant that increases dopamine and noradrenaline transmission in the brain, to help them focus over extended periods of time. While methylphenidate has been shown to facilitate some cognitive functions, like focus and distractor-resistance, the same drug might also contribute to cognitive impairment, for example, in creativity. In this study, we investigated whether acute administration of a low oral dose (20 mg) of methylphenidate affected convergent and divergent creative processes in a sample of young healthy participants. Also, we explored whether such effects depended on individual differences in ADHD symptoms and working memory capacity. Contrary to our expectations, methylphenidate did not affect participants’ creative performance on any of the tasks. Also, methylphenidate effects did not depend on individual differences in trait hyperactivity–impulsivity or baseline working memory capacity. Thus, although the effects of methylphenidate on creativity might be underestimated in our study due to several methodological factors, our findings do not suggest that methylphenidate impairs people’s ability to be creative. •Methylphenidate effects on convergent and divergent creativity were studied.•Methylphenidate did not affect performance on any of the creativity tasks.•Effects did not depend on individual differences in hyperactivity–impulsivity.•Effects did not depend on individual differences in working memory capacity.•Findings do not suggest that methylphenidate impairs people’s creative ability.

Catecholamine-enhancing psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate have long been argued to undermine creative thinking. However, prior evidence for this is weak or contradictory, stemming from studies with small sample sizes that do not consider the well-established large variability in psychostimulant effects across different individuals and task demands. We aimed to definitively establish the link between psychostimulants and creative thinking by measuring effects of methylphenidate in 90 healthy participants on distinct creative tasks that measure convergent and divergent thinking, as a function of individuals’ baseline dopamine synthesis capacity, indexed with 18F-FDOPA PET imaging. In a double-blind, within-subject design, participants were administered methylphenidate, placebo or selective D2 receptor antagonist sulpiride. The results showed that striatal dopamine synthesis capacity and/or methylphenidate administration did not affect divergent and convergent thinking. However, exploratory analysis demonstrated a baseline dopamine-dependent effect of methylphenidate on a measure of response divergence, a creativity measure that measures response variability. Response divergence was reduced by methylphenidate in participants with low dopamine synthesis capacity but enhanced in those with high dopamine synthesis capacity. No evidence of any effect of sulpiride was found. These results show that methylphenidate can undermine certain forms of divergent creativity but only in individuals with low baseline dopamine levels.

By examining the shared neuro-cognitive correlates of curiosity and creativity, we better understand the brain basis of creativity. However, by only examining shared components, important neuro-cognitive correlates are overlooked. Here, we argue that any comprehensive brain model of creativity should consider multiple cognitive processes and, alongside the interplay between brain networks, also the neurochemistry and neural oscillations that underly creativity.

The ability to generate novel and potentially useful ideas and problem solutions (viz., creativity) is a key driver of human evolution, and among the most valued and sought after competencies in contemporary societies. Because creativity provides fitness functionality in both ancestral and contemporary societies, it stands to reason that (i) the human brain evolved to sustain and promote creative thinking and we should therefore be able to identify, (ii) the brain circuitries and neurohormonal modulators of the human capacity for creativity, and (iii) the core cognitive, motivational, and emotional processes underlying creative thought. [...]Stevenson and colleagues researched whether creativity could be improved by practicing divergent thinking. Exploring the impact of a single night of sleep deprivation on idea generation (i.e., fluency) and PFC function during divergent thinking, these authors discovered that cognitive effectiveness and fluency were impaired following sleep deprivation.

Creativity enables humans to adapt flexibly to changing circumstances, to manage complex social relations and to survive and prosper through social, technological and medical innovations. In humans, chronic, trait-based as well as temporary, state-based approach orientation has been linked to increased capacity for divergent rather than convergent thinking, to more global and holistic processing styles and to more original ideation and creative problem solving. Here, we link creative cognition to oxytocin, a hypothalamic neuropeptide known to up-regulate approach orientation in both animals and humans. Study 1 ( N = 492) showed that plasma oxytocin predicts novelty-seeking temperament. Study 2 ( N = 110) revealed that genotype differences in a polymorphism in the oxytocin receptor gene rs1042778 predicted creative ideation, with GG/GT-carriers being more original than TT-carriers. Using double-blind placebo-controlled between-subjects designs, Studies 3–6 ( N = 191) finally showed that intranasal oxytocin ( vs matching placebo) reduced analytical reasoning, and increased holistic processing, divergent thinking and creative performance. We conclude that the oxytonergic circuitry sustains and enables the day-to-day creativity humans need for survival and prosperity and discuss implications.