IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2023s-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Creative Cognition as a Bandit Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Noémie Berlin
  • Jan Dul
  • Marco Gazel
  • Louis Lévy-Garboua
  • Todd Lubart

Abstract

This paper characterizes creative cognition as a multi-armed bandit problem involving a trade-off between exploration and exploitation 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. Cet article caractérise la cognition créative comme un problème de bandit-manchot à bras multiples impliquant un compromis entre exploration et exploitation dans les décisions séquentielles basées sur l'expérience et se déroulant dans de nouveaux environnements incertains. La cognition créative met en œuvre un processus d'apprentissage efficace dans ce type de décision dynamique. L'accent est mis sur l'enchaînement optimal des comportements divergents et convergents en montrant que la divergence doit être inhibée à un moment donné pour converger vers un comportement créatif, de sorte qu'une divergence excessive est contre-productive. Nous testons cette hypothèse dans deux expériences comportementales, en utilisant à la fois des tâches nouvelles et bien connues et des mesures précises des différences individuelles dans le potentiel créatif d'élèves de collège et de lycée. Les résultats des deux études ont confirmé qu'un mélange de divergence et de convergence dépendant de la tâche permettait de prédire une performance élevée dans une tâche de production et une meilleure satisfaction dans une tâche de consommation, mais exclusivement dans des environnements nouveaux et incertains. Ces prédictions ont été maintenues après contrôle du sexe, de la personnalité, des incitations et d'autres facteurs. Comme nous l'avions supposé, la cognition créative s'est avérée nécessaire pour obtenir des performances élevées dans les conditions appropriées. Cependant, elle n'est pas nécessaire pour obtenir de bonnes notes dans un système scolaire traditionnel.

Suggested Citation

  • Noémie Berlin & Jan Dul & Marco Gazel & Louis Lévy-Garboua & Todd Lubart, 2023. "Creative Cognition as a Bandit Problem," CIRANO Working Papers 2023s-11, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2023s-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2023s-11.pdf
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Gary Charness & Daniela Grieco, 2019. "Creativity and Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 454-496.
    9. 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.
    10. Noémi Berlin & Jean-Louis Tavani & Maud Besançon, 2016. "An exploratory study of creativity, personality and schooling achievement," Post-Print hal-01392470, HAL.
    11. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Giuseppe Attanasi & Ylenia Curci & Patrick Llerena & Maria del Pino Ramos-Sosa & Adriana Carolina Pinate & Giulia Urso, 2019. "Looking at Creativity from East to West: Risk Taking and Intrinsic Motivation in Socially and Culturally Diverse Countries," Working Papers of BETA 2019-38, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. 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.
    5. Wojciech Hardy & Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2015. ""Thou shalt not leech" Are digital pirates conditional cooperators?," Working Papers 2015-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    6. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    7. Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Delegated investment decisions and rankings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    9. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    10. 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.
    11. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks – Evidence from a Field Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168286, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Belzil, Christian & Sidibé, Modibo, 2016. "Internal and External Validity of Experimental Risk and Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 10348, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Fischbacher, Urs & Schudy, Simeon & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Heterogeneous preferences and investments in energy saving measures," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    14. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Alserda, Gosse A.G. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Swinkels, Laurens & van der Lecq, Fieke S.G., 2019. "Individual pension risk preference elicitation and collective asset allocation with heterogeneity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 206-225.
    20. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Luhan, Wolfgang J., 2015. "Am I my Peer's Keeper? Social Responsibility in Financial Decision Making," Ruhr Economic Papers 551, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.

    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; Créativité cognitive; Problème du bandit à plusieurs bras; Compromis exploration-exploitation; Différences individuelles de potentiel créatif; Comportement des adolescents; Analyse des conditions nécessaires;
    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cir:cirwor:2023s-11. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.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.