Nature Nurtures Creativity After Four Days of Hiking

I just read about a fascinating new study* that examined 56 people who went on an Outward Bound wilderness expedition. No electronic devices were allowed on the trips. Of the 56 people, 24 took a creativity test before they left for the trip. The other 32 took the test out in the wilderness, on the fourth day of the trip…after four days disconnected from the grid. These 32 people scored 50% higher on the creativity test than the 24 people who hadn’t yet started their trip! The intriguing implication is that those four days enhanced creativity.

The test they used was the Remote Associates Test (RAT). The way it works is that you’re given three words, and your task is to identify a fourth “target word” that is related to all three of those words. For example, an answer to SAME/TENNIS/HEAD would be MATCH (because a match is the same, tennis match, and match head). The test was designed back in the 1960s by Professor Sarnoff Mednick. Mednick designed each triplet so that all three words are related to the target word in a different way; so, to solve the task, your mind has to activate very different conceptual clusters. Hence the name “remote associates.” Mednick argued that people who were better at making these remote associations would be more likely to come up with surprising new ideas.

The test was not timed; you could take as long as you wanted. After four days in the wilderness, the average score was 6.08 triplets (out of ten) were solved. The people who hadn’t left yet scored an average of 4.14 out of ten. That’s a pretty big difference! Kudos to the researchers for getting such strong findings.

There’s a lot we don’t know yet (as the researchers point out).

  1. We don’t know if the higher scores are due to spending time in nature, or are due to simply getting away from work and electronic devices, and taking time off. Psychologists have known for years that vacation enhances creativity, that idle time is a necessary part of the creative process, and that people who work all the time are not going to be at their peak creative potential.
  2. Because the test wasn’t timed, it could be that the people who hadn’t left yet were impatient and were rushing to get everything ready, while the people who took the test out in the wilderness had a lot more time on their hands. Maybe the effects are simply due to the in-hike group spending more time on the test.
  3. The RAT correlates very highly with measures of verbal intelligence, suggesting that it may be more of a verbal skills test than a creativity test per se. (The researchers controlled for age, because older people have higher verbal abilities.)
  4. The RAT requires a person to identify the one correct answer, whereas in many cases, creativity is associated with being able to come up with a broad variety of different answers–what’s known as divergent thinking.
  5. In a large percentage of historical cases, creative insights result from associations of closely related material, not from extremely remote associations. So remote association is clearly not the same thing as creativity, although it seems to be related.

You can learn more about the research behind these points on pages 44 to 46 of Explaining Creativity.

*Atchley RA, Strayer DL, Atchley P (2012) Creativity in the Wild: Improving Creative Reasoning through Immersion in Natural Settings. PLoS ONE 7(12): e51474. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051474


4 thoughts on “Nature Nurtures Creativity After Four Days of Hiking

  1. Reblogged this on Censemaking and commented:
    Keith Sawyer points to a remarkable study that shows how exposure to the outdoors enhances creativity. The mechanisms are unclear, but it could be that there is a sense of possibility that comes from the outdoors due to the expanded boundaries of perception. By that, I think of how the topography, fauna and flora constantly present novelty and new combinations that are not seen when you are on screen. With our computers and tech tools, the format of information is presented in ways that are relatively consistent moment to moment and introduce little novelty. It’s an idea, but certainly its something to look at with more detail. So for now, the lesson might be to take a vacation from your tech and get outside if you want to spur creative problem solving.

  2. This is really interesting. I was wondering if were familiar with Richard Louv’s work and his notion of Nature Deficit Disorder? Seems to be reaching similar conclusions?

    1. I am not…and the authors don’t cite it, either. They cite this, it looks interesting: Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3): 169–182.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s