情境压力提升创新发现行为效率的认知神经机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1370

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

监测与解决认知冲突是创新发现过程中的关键认知加工。然而, 由于认知努力回避倾向的影响, 个体未必成功地解决新颖观念所引发的认知冲突, 错失很多生成或识别新颖产品的机会。为了检验情境压力增加认知控制资源和提高新颖产品识别效率的作用机制, 实验1设置了有压力条件, 实验2进一步设置了高压力条件。结果显示, 对于新颖低有效产品, 在有压力和高压力条件下均诱发了更小的N400、更大的晚期成分(LSP) (vs.无压力); 对于新颖高有效产品, 仅在高压力条件下诱发了更小的N400、更大的LSP (vs.无压力)。并且, 被试在有压力和高压力条件下识别新颖产品的准确率都高于无压力条件。上述结果说明, 情境压力增加创新发现过程中的认知控制资源, 促进认知冲突解决, 进而提高了新颖产品的识别效率。这项研究不仅完善了创新发现过程中认知冲突监测与解决的机制, 也为创新行为训练提供了新的认知调控路径。

关键词: 压力, 创新行为, 认知控制, 认知冲突, N400

Abstract:

Identifying novel associations between seemingly unrelated things is the core characteristic of creative discovery behavior, while monitoring and resolving cognitive conflicts are essential cognitive processes that facilitate this form of creativity. However, the human brain tends to operate according to the principle of least effort, which can result in cognitive conflicts that are induced by novel ideas not being fully resolved. Consequently, several opportunities for identifying creative and useful ideas may be overlooked.

To increase the likelihood of accurately identifying novel ideas, it is necessary to strengthen executive control in resolving cognitive conflicts. Given the situational adaptability in psychological and behavioral activities, participants may experience pressure to generate or discover novel ideas in situations where ordinary ideas are insufficient to solve problems, compared with situations where ordinary ideas are suitable for problem solving. This type of situational pressure may enhance executive control during conflict resolution and subsequently increase the probability of successfully identifying novel ideas.

To test the feasibility of enhancing executive control during conflict resolution and improving the efficiency of identifying novel ideas, this study manipulated situational pressure in creative discovery. Following daily life problem scenario, participants were presented with two or three products consecutively so that they could discover and identify useful ideas. A commonly used product was introduced first, followed by a novel product. When a commonly used product is useful for solving a problem, participants are likely to experience no pressure to discover novel products. Conversely, when a commonly used product is not useful for solving a problem, participants experience pressure to discover novel products. If two consecutive commonly used products are not sufficient to solve the problem, participants experience high pressure to discover novel products. In addition to a no-pressure condition, experiment 1 included a pressure condition, while experiment 2 included a high-pressure condition.

Experiment 1 revealed that novel but less useful products elicited smaller N400 and larger LSP amplitudes under pressure conditions than under no-pressure conditions. In contrast, there were no differences in N400 or LSP amplitudes elicited by novel and highly useful products between the two conditions. Experiment 2 revealed that compared with no-pressure conditions, both novel and highly useful products, as well as novel but less useful products, elicited smaller N400 and larger LSP amplitudes under high-pressure conditions. Furthermore, for correctly identified novel products, the positive correlation between N400 and LSP amplitudes was significantly greater under high-pressure conditions than under no-pressure conditions.

These findings indicate that situational pressure enhances executive control during creative discovery behavior, particularly by improving the resolution of the cognitive conflicts induced by novel products and increasing the efficiency of distinguishing novel and useful products from novel but less useful products. This study demonstrates the impact of situational pressure on creative discovery, enriches the understanding of monitoring and resolving cognitive conflicts in creative discovery behavior, and reveals a cognitive pathway for creative behavior training.

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

中图分类号:

B842

郑怡琳, 张玲, 黄福荣. (2026). 情境压力提升创新发现行为效率的认知神经机制. 心理学报, 58(7), 1370-1386.

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.

图/表 7

参考文献 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.
[2]	Benedek, M., Beaty, R., Schacter, D., & Kenett, Y. N. (2023). The role of memory in creative ideation. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2, 246-257.
[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.
[4]	Blake, A., & Palmisano, S. (2021). Divergent thinking influences the perception of ambiguous visual illusions. Perception, 50(5), 418-437.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[14]	Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A.C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[21]	Huang, F., Song, Y., Jiang, Y., Zhao, Q., & Luo, J. (2022). Where and how are original and valuable ideas generated? tDCS of the generation-related posterior temporal lobe and the executive control-related prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 32(5), 1004-1013.
[22]	Huang, F., Zhao, Q., Zhou, Z., & Luo, J. (2019). People got lost in solving a set of similar problems. NeuroImage, 186, 192-199.
[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.
[24]	Jia, L., Song, Y., Ren, J., Li, F., & Huang, F. (2023). When and why will creative discovery succeed or fail? The role of reactive control in resolving conflicts. Psychophysiology, 60(7), e14243.
[25]	Jia, L., Tang, S., Song, Y., Ren, J., Li, F., & Huang, F. (2023). 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.
[27]	Laukkonen, R. E., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). Can observing a necker cube make you more insightful? Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 198-211.
[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.
[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.
[30]	Martin, L., & Wilson, N. (2017). Defining creativity with discovery. Creativity Research Journal, 29(4), 417-425.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[39]	Thomas, C., & Didierjean, A. (2016). Magicians fix your mind: How unlikely solutions block obvious ones. Cognition, 154, 169-173.
[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.
[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.
[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.

指标	压力条件	M ± SD	t	p
击中率	无压力	0.71 ± 0.16	−4.23	<0.001
击中率	有压力	0.79 ± 0.13	−4.23	<0.001
漏报率	无压力	0.29 ± 0.16	4.23	<0.001
漏报率	有压力	0.21 ± 0.13	4.23	<0.001
虚报率	无压力	0.11 ± 0.18	0.85	0.400
虚报率	有压力	0.08 ± 0.07	0.85	0.400
正拒率	无压力	0.89 ± 0.18	−0.85	0.400
正拒率	有压力	0.92 ± 0.07	−0.85	0.400
评估标准	无压力	3.44 ± 2.73	1.80	0.080
评估标准	有压力	2.78 ± 2.17	1.80	0.080
正确率	无压力	0.60 ± 0.19	−3.28	0.003
正确率	有压力	0.70 ± 0.13	−3.28	0.003

指标	压力条件	M ± SD	t	p
击中率	无压力	0.71 ± 0.16	−4.23	<0.001
击中率	有压力	0.79 ± 0.13	−4.23	<0.001
漏报率	无压力	0.29 ± 0.16	4.23	<0.001
漏报率	有压力	0.21 ± 0.13	4.23	<0.001
虚报率	无压力	0.11 ± 0.18	0.85	0.400
虚报率	有压力	0.08 ± 0.07	0.85	0.400
正拒率	无压力	0.89 ± 0.18	−0.85	0.400
正拒率	有压力	0.92 ± 0.07	−0.85	0.400
评估标准	无压力	3.44 ± 2.73	1.80	0.080
评估标准	有压力	2.78 ± 2.17	1.80	0.080
正确率	无压力	0.60 ± 0.19	−3.28	0.003
正确率	有压力	0.70 ± 0.13	−3.28	0.003

指标	压力条件	M ± SD	t	p
击中率	无压力	0.71 ± 0.03	−3.28	0.003
击中率	高压力	0.78 ± 0.02	−3.28	0.003
漏报率	无压力	0.29 ± 0.03	3.28	0.003
漏报率	高压力	0.22 ± 0.02	3.28	0.003
虚报率	无压力	0.16 ± 0.03	2.36	0.024
虚报率	高压力	0.09 ± 0.02	2.36	0.024
正拒率	无压力	0.83 ± 0.03	−2.36	0.024
正拒率	高压力	0.91 ± 0.02	−2.36	0.024
评估标准	无压力	3.00 ± 0.47	0.47	0.644
评估标准	高压力	3.16 ± 0.44	0.47	0.644
正确率	无压力	0.55 ± 0.03	−4.92	< 0.001
正确率	高压力	0.69 ± 0.02	−4.92	< 0.001

指标	压力条件	M ± SD	t	p
击中率	无压力	0.71 ± 0.03	−3.28	0.003
击中率	高压力	0.78 ± 0.02	−3.28	0.003
漏报率	无压力	0.29 ± 0.03	3.28	0.003
漏报率	高压力	0.22 ± 0.02	3.28	0.003
虚报率	无压力	0.16 ± 0.03	2.36	0.024
虚报率	高压力	0.09 ± 0.02	2.36	0.024
正拒率	无压力	0.83 ± 0.03	−2.36	0.024
正拒率	高压力	0.91 ± 0.02	−2.36	0.024
评估标准	无压力	3.00 ± 0.47	0.47	0.644
评估标准	高压力	3.16 ± 0.44	0.47	0.644
正确率	无压力	0.55 ± 0.03	−4.92	< 0.001
正确率	高压力	0.69 ± 0.02	−4.92	< 0.001