↓ Skip to main content

The Impact of Bodily States on Divergent Thinking: Evidence for a Control-Depletion Account

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Impact of Bodily States on Divergent Thinking: Evidence for a Control-Depletion Account
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01546
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yanyun Zhou, Yifei Zhang, Bernhard Hommel, Hao Zhang

Abstract

Given previous evidence that bodily states can impact basic cognitive processes, we asked whether such impact can also be demonstrated for creative cognition. In particular, we had participants perform a design improvement task and a consequences imagination task while standing up, walking in a predetermined pattern, or walking freely. Results show better divergent-thinking performance with unconstrained than with constrained walking, and better performance for walking than for standing. A second experiment assessed performance in an alternative uses task and a figural combination task while participants were lying, sitting, or standing. Results showed better performance when standing up than when lying or sitting. Taken altogether, these observations provide evidence for an approach in terms of cognitive-control depletion: the more a bodily activity exhausts control resources, the better divergent thinking can unfold, presumably because reduced top-down control brings more ideas into play.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 16 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 25%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 21 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,140,786
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,203
of 30,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,887
of 321,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#119
of 589 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 589 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.