The cognitive and neural mechanism by which situational pressure increases the efficiency of creative discovery behavior

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1370

Abstract

Abstract:

Monitoring and resolving cognitive conflict are key cognitive processes in creative discovery. However, due to individuals’ tendency to avoid cognitive effort, they may fail to resolve the cognitive conflict triggered by novel ideas, missing numerous opportunities to generate or identify novel products. To examine the mechanism by which situational pressure enhances cognitive control resources and improves the efficiency of novel product identification, Experiment 1 established a pressure condition, and Experiment 2 further included a high-pressure condition. The results showed that for novel but less useful products, both pressure and high-pressure conditions elicited a smaller N400 and a greater late positive component (LSP) compared to the non-pressure condition. For novel and highly useful products, only the high-pressure condition elicited a smaller N400 and a greater LSP relative to the non-pressure condition. Moreover, participants’ accuracy in identifying novel products was higher under both pressure and high-pressure conditions than under the non-pressure condition. These findings indicate that situational pressure increases cognitive control resources during creative discovery, promotes cognitive conflict resolution, and thereby enhances the efficiency of novel product identification. This study not only refines the mechanism of cognitive conflict monitoring and resolution in creative discovery but also provides a novel cognitive regulation pathway for training creative behavior.

Key words: pressure, creative behavior, executive control, cognitive conflict, N400

ZHENG Yilin, ZHANG Ling, HUANG Furong. (2026). The cognitive and neural mechanism by which situational pressure increases the efficiency of creative discovery behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(7), 1370-1386.

Figures/Tables 7

References 43

[1]	Agnoli, S., Franchin, L., Rubaltelli, E., & Corazza, G. E. (2015). An eye-tracking analysis of irrelevance processing as moderator of openness and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 125-132. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1030304 URL
[2]	Benedek, M., Beaty, R., Schacter, D., & Kenett, Y. N. (2023). The role of memory in creative ideation. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2, 246-257. doi: 10.1038/s44159-023-00158-z
[3]	Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108(3), 652-661. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.005 pmid: 18565505
[4]	Blake, A., & Palmisano, S. (2021). Divergent thinking influences the perception of ambiguous visual illusions. Perception, 50(5), 418-437. doi: 10.1177/03010066211000192 URL
[5]	Blech, C., Gaschler, R., & Bilalić, M. (2019). Why do people fail to see simple solutions? Using think-aloud protocols to uncover the mechanism behind the einstellung (mental set) effect. Thinking and Reasoning, 26(4), 552-580. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2019.1685001 URL
[6]	Bogdanov, M., Nitschke, J. P., Loparco, S., Bartz, J. A., & Otto, A. R. (2021). Acute psychosocial stress increases cognitive-effort avoidance. Psychological science, 32(9), 1463-1475. doi: 10.1177/09567976211005465 URL
[7]	Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 539-546. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003 pmid: 15556023
[8]	Bullock Muir, A., Tribe, B., & Forster, S. (2024). Creativity on tap? the effect of creativity anxiety under evaluative pressure. Creativity Research Journal, 37(4), 654-663. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2024.2330800 URL
[9]	Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201-212. doi: 10.1037/a0017868 pmid: 20085417
[10]	Celis, D. A. G., Liou, S., & Sibo, I. P. H.(2025). Enhancing team creativity through paradoxical frames: Exploring the role of conflict and integrative complexity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(3), e70044. doi: 10.1002/jocb.v59.3 URL
[11]	Chan, M. M. Y., Cho, E., Ralph, M. A., & Robinson, G. A. (2025). The cognitive and neural bases of creative thought: A cross-domain systematic review and meta-analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 175, 106237. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106237 URL
[12]	Cameron, C. D., Hutcherson, C. A., & Ferguson, A. M., Scheffer, J. A., Hadjiandreou, E., & Inzlicht, M. (2019). Empathy is hard work: people choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(6), 962-976. doi: 10.1037/xge0000595 URL
[13]	David, L., Vassena, E., & Bijleveld, E. (2024). The unpleasantness of thinking: A meta-analytic review of the association between mental effort and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 150(9), 1070-1093. doi: 10.1037/bul0000443 pmid: 39101924
[14]	Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A.C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and usable? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9( 1), 35-40.
[15]	Fahoum, N., Pick, H., Ivancovsky, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. (2022). Free your mind: Creative thinking contributes to overcoming conflict-related biases. Brain Sciences, 12(11), 1566.
[16]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39, 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[17]	Guo, X., Wang, Y., Kan, Y., Zhang, J., Ball, L. J., & Duan, H. (2024). How does stress shape creativity? The mediating effect of stress hormones and cognitive flexibility. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52(1), 101521.
[18]	Huang, F., Fan, J., & Luo, J. (2015). The neural basis of novelty and appropriateness in processing of creative chunk decomposition. NeuroImage, 113, 122-132. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.030 pmid: 25797834
[19]	Huang, F., Tang, S., Sun, P., & Luo, J. (2018). Neural correlates of novelty and appropriateness processing in externally induced constraint relaxation. NeuroImage, 172, 381-389. doi: S1053-8119(18)30070-3 pmid: 29408576
[20]	Huang, F., Han, L., Jiang, Y., Li, F., & Luo, J. (2019). Neural adaptation and cognitive inflexibility in repeated problem-solving behaviors. Cortex, 119, 470-479. doi: S0010-9452(19)30287-4 pmid: 31505438
[21]	Huang, F., Zhao, Q., Zhou, Z., & Luo, J. (2019). People got lost in solving a set of similar problems. NeuroImage, 186, 192-199. doi: S1053-8119(18)32035-4 pmid: 30449716
[22]	Huang, F., Song, Y., Jiang, Y., Zhao, Q., & Luo, J. (2022). Where and how original & valuable ideas are generated? tDCS the generation-related TPJ and executive control-related DLPFC. Cerebral Cortex, 32(5), 1004-1013. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhab261 URL
[23]	Jia, L., Ren, J., Li, F., & Huang, F. (2024). Evaluation standards regulate the generation and selection of novel ideas in creative behaviors: Insights from individual differences in event-related potentials. Cerebral Cortex, 34(10), 1-15. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhae097 URL
[24]	Jia, L., Song, Y., Ren, J., Li, F., & Huang, F. (2023a). When and why will creative discovery succeed or fail? The role of reactive control in resolving conflicts. Psychophysiology, 60(7), e14243. doi: 10.1111/psyp.v60.7 URL
[25]	Jia, L., Tang, S., Song, Y., Ren, J., Li, F., & Huang, F. (2023b). Cognitive control in creative discovery: the gap between ideal and reality. Biological Psychology, 178, 108552.
[26]	Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665-682. doi: 10.1037/a0020198 URL
[27]	Laukkonen, R. E., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). Can observing a necker cube make you more insightful? Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 198-211. doi: S1053-8100(16)30227-6 pmid: 28006729
[28]	Lezama, R., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M. T. (2023). Individual differences in semantic priming and inhibitory control predict performance in the remote associates test (rat). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, 101426. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101426 URL
[29]	Liu, F., Li, P., Taris, T. W., & Peeters, M. C. W.(2022). Creative performance pressure as a double‐edged sword for creativity: the role of appraisals and resources. Human Resource Management, 61(6), 663-679. doi: 10.1002/hrm.v61.6 URL
[30]	Martin, L., & Wilson, N. (2017). Defining creativity with discovery. Creativity Research Journal, 29(4), 417-425. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1376543 URL
[31]	Mastria, S., Agnoli, S., Corazza, G. E., Grassi, M., & Franchin, L. (2023). What inspires us? An experimental analysis of the semantic meaning of irrelevant information in creative ideation. Thinking and Reasoning, 29(4), 698-725. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2022.2132289 URL
[32]	Pope-Caldwell, S. M., & Washburn, D. A. (2022). Overcoming cognitive set bias requires more than seeing an alternative strategy. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 2179. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-06237-0 pmid: 35140344
[33]	Quinn, M. E., & Shields, G. S. (2023). The insidious influence of stress: An integrated model of stress, executive control, and psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 11(5), 773-800. doi: 10.1177/21677026221149736 pmid: 37701497
[34]	Reis, M., Agnoli, S., & Kunde, W. (2025). Creativity and irrelevance processing: evidence from online eye tracking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000756
[35]	Reis, M., Foerster, A., Zettler, I., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2024). Sticky tradition impedes selection of creative ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(1), 268-273. doi: 10.1037/xge0001490 URL
[36]	Sayali, C., Rubin-McGregor, J., & Badre, D. (2023). Policy abstraction as a predictor of cognitive effort avoidance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(12), 3440-3458. doi: 10.1037/xge0001449 URL
[37]	Schmidt, J. R. (2025). Is conflict adaptation adaptive? An introduction to conflict monitoring theory and the ecological problems it faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(5), 865-883. doi: 10.1177/17470218231161555 URL
[38]	Tang, S., Jia, L. J., Liu, M. Z., Ren, J. Y., Li, F. H., Luo, J., & Huang, F. R. (2021). The dynamic monitoring and control mechanism in problem solving: Evidence from theta and alpha oscillations. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 170, 112-120. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.10.010 pmid: 34699862
[39]	Thomas, C., & Didierjean, A. (2016). Magicians fix your mind: How unlikely solutions block obvious ones. Cognition, 154, 169-173. doi: S0010-0277(16)30149-4 pmid: 27318598
[40]	Yang, W., Green, A. E., Chen, Q., Kenett, Y. N., Sun, J., Wei, D., & Qiu, J. (2022). Creative problem solving in knowledge-rich contexts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(10), 849-859. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.012 URL
[41]	Zhang, L., Guo, R., Zheng, Y., Jia, L., & Huang, F. (2026). Perceptual adaptation optimized subjective evaluation and enhanced creative performance: a new path for creativity training. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 61, 102152. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2026.102152 URL
[42]	Zheng, Y. L., Ren, J. Y., Li, F. H., & Huang, F. R. (2024). Trait anxiety negatively affected creative discovery under pressure conditions: Evidence from behavioral responses and ERPs. Personality and Individual Differences, 231, e112821.
[43]	Zhou, L., Yan, H., Ren, J., Li, F., Luo, J., & Huang, F. (2022). Cognitive control of invalid predominant ideas in insight-like problem solving. Psychophysiology, 59(12), e14133. doi: 10.1111/psyp.v59.12 URL

	Condition	M± SD	t	p
Hit Rate	Non-pressure	0.71±0.16	-4.23	< 0.001
Hit Rate	Pressure	0.79±0.13	-4.23	< 0.001
Miss Rate	Non-pressure	0.29±0.16	4.23	< 0.001
Miss Rate	Pressure	0.21±0.13	4.23	< 0.001
False Alarm Rate	Non-pressure	0.11±0.18	0.85	0.400
False Alarm Rate	Pressure	0.08±0.07	0.85	0.400
Correct Rejection Rate	Non-pressure	0.89±0.18	-0.85	0.400
Correct Rejection Rate	Pressure	0.92±0.07	-0.85	0.400
Evaluation Standards	Non-pressure	3.44±2.73	1.80	0.080
Evaluation Standards	Pressure	2.78±2.17	1.80	0.080
Identification Efficiency	Non-pressure	0.60±0.19	-3.28	0.003
Identification Efficiency	Pressure	0.70±0.13	-3.28	0.003

	Condition	M± SD	t	p
Hit Rate	Non-pressure	0.71±0.16	-4.23	< 0.001
Hit Rate	Pressure	0.79±0.13	-4.23	< 0.001
Miss Rate	Non-pressure	0.29±0.16	4.23	< 0.001
Miss Rate	Pressure	0.21±0.13	4.23	< 0.001
False Alarm Rate	Non-pressure	0.11±0.18	0.85	0.400
False Alarm Rate	Pressure	0.08±0.07	0.85	0.400
Correct Rejection Rate	Non-pressure	0.89±0.18	-0.85	0.400
Correct Rejection Rate	Pressure	0.92±0.07	-0.85	0.400
Evaluation Standards	Non-pressure	3.44±2.73	1.80	0.080
Evaluation Standards	Pressure	2.78±2.17	1.80	0.080
Identification Efficiency	Non-pressure	0.60±0.19	-3.28	0.003
Identification Efficiency	Pressure	0.70±0.13	-3.28	0.003

	Condition	M± SD	t	p
Hit Rate	Non-pressure	0.71±0.03	-3.28	0.003
Hit Rate	High-pressure	0.78±0.02	-3.28	0.003
Miss Rate	Non-pressure	0.29±0.03	3.28	0.003
Miss Rate	High-pressure	0.22±0.02	3.28	0.003
False Alarm Rate	Non-pressure	0.16±0.03	2.36	0.024
False Alarm Rate	High-pressure	0.09±0.02	2.36	0.024
Correct Rejection Rate	Non-pressure	0.83±0.03	-2.36	0.024
Correct Rejection Rate	High-pressure	0.91±0.02	-2.36	0.024
Evaluation Standards	Non-pressure	3.00±0.47	0.47	0.644
Evaluation Standards	High-pressure	3.16±0.44	0.47	0.644
Identification Efficiency	Non-pressure	0.55±0.03	-4.92	< 0.001
Identification Efficiency	High-pressure	0.69±0.02	-4.92	< 0.001

	Condition	M± SD	t	p
Hit Rate	Non-pressure	0.71±0.03	-3.28	0.003
Hit Rate	High-pressure	0.78±0.02	-3.28	0.003
Miss Rate	Non-pressure	0.29±0.03	3.28	0.003
Miss Rate	High-pressure	0.22±0.02	3.28	0.003
False Alarm Rate	Non-pressure	0.16±0.03	2.36	0.024
False Alarm Rate	High-pressure	0.09±0.02	2.36	0.024
Correct Rejection Rate	Non-pressure	0.83±0.03	-2.36	0.024
Correct Rejection Rate	High-pressure	0.91±0.02	-2.36	0.024
Evaluation Standards	Non-pressure	3.00±0.47	0.47	0.644
Evaluation Standards	High-pressure	3.16±0.44	0.47	0.644
Identification Efficiency	Non-pressure	0.55±0.03	-4.92	< 0.001
Identification Efficiency	High-pressure	0.69±0.02	-4.92	< 0.001