The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between physical exercise and creative thinking. A systematic review approach was employed by searching PubMed, Google Scholar and PsychInfo databases. Among the evaluated 13 studies, 92% indicated a beneficial relationship. However, 77% were vulnerable to moderate-high risk for methodological bias, suggesting adherence to standardized and controlled research initiatives should be promoted. There appears to be weak to modest support for acute, moderate-intensity exercise to benefit creativity. Exercise timing relative to creativity assessment protocols should be addressed and further detailed. Creativity scoring procedures must be refined, and an increased focus on the motivational components of exercise may help guide researchers in measuring creative thoughts and behavior. Broader concluding claims that creativity, in general, is improved or impaired by exercise, is as problematic as sweeping statements that exercise improves or impairs a measure as dynamic as intelligence. Scientific inquiries must specify precisely which outcome characteristics are changing in line with research interventions. This review identifies several fallible linkages between physical activity and creativity. Too few studies were conducted on strong methodological foundations, perpetuating the risk for undermining or inaccurately inflating the potential association between exercise and creative thinking behavior.
Scientific inquiry in any field is difficult when the parameter beneath the lens of empirical scrutiny is difficult to both operationalize and localize. Researchers have attempted to define creativity as a broad construct that encompasses “the degree of novelty of which the person is capable, or which he [or she] habitually exhibits” (
Despite the volume and remarkable adaptability of creative exposition, Guilford revolutionized empirical creativity assessment with a push to evaluate creative divergent thinking (
Unfortunately, as creativity research efforts in psychological and neurobiological disciplines appear to be making headway towards the practical conceptualization of such an untenable construct, creativity research in exercise science and health promotion is stunted. The lack of experimental work on this topic is staggering, with only 13 research studies investigating the associations between physical exercise and quantifiable creative products (
Following the systematic review framework detailed elsewhere (
Research studies were included if they utilized an experimental study design, were published in English, indexed in PubMed, Google Scholar and PsycInfo, and specifically evaluated the influence of acute or habitual physical exercise on creativity in children or adults, of either gender and with no known psychological or physical limitations or preexisting pathology that would prevent them from being classified as healthy at baseline. Any exercise intervention (acute or chronic laboratory or free-living physical activities) coupled with either an active or traditional control group (no exercise) was considered.
Cognitive creativity (analogy, convergent thinking, divergent thinking, insight, metaphors, and problem-solving).
Research studies were excluded if no exercise intervention was employed, self-report questionnaires of creative strengths and abilities were not accompanied by an observable laboratory measure of creative potential (
The following databases were searched between 1 January 2018 and 10 January 2018: PubMed, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar. MeSH keyword terms included exercise, physical exercise, physical activity, creativity, exercise and creativity, physical exercise and creativity, and physical activity and creativity. Subordinate terms included convergent thinking, divergent thinking, and insight problem-solving.
See
Risk of bias/study quality was evaluated for each article using a checklist developed specifically for this study. The following checklist includes seven items with a yes (1) or no (0) response option and was constructed in accordance with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (
Was the physical activity manipulation controlled (e.g., completed in a laboratory setting, standardized by duration and intensity, and for interaction with other participants if administered in a group context)?
Was there evidence of reliability for the creativity measure(s) utilized?
Was there evidence of validity for the creativity measure(s) utilized?
Were creativity scoring and evaluation procedures robust to bias (e.g., blinded scoring completed by multiple researchers, provision of strong interrater reliability, and detailed or referenced?
Were random group assignment and/or counterbalancing procedures appropriate (e.g., were participants assigned to groups based on course enrollment, rather than random selection and were the order of creativity assessments randomized to ensure resistance to temporal artifacts or learning effects?) for the study design?
Did the intervention use a non-exercise control group or condition?
Were statistically appropriate/acceptable methods of data analysis used?
Were point estimates, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and/or effect sizes reported?
Items 2 and 3 required each manuscript to include an explicit description of evidence for reliability and validity of the creativity outcome assessments employed. The manuscript earned a ‘no’ (0) score for missing details regarding reliable/valid measures, which may have been utilized in some experiments, but were not adequately detailed per our quality evaluation criteria. A ‘no’ score for Item 7 was awarded to manuscripts that failed to use reasonable statistical methods for post-hoc analysis of outcomes. Statistically inappropriate decisions included reporting Pearson correlation coefficients for interrater reliability, failure to use the appropriate statistical tests and computing unpaired analyses of treatment effects on individual differences as a result of chronic training studies. Item 8 identified articles that neglected to report point estimates, confidence intervals, standard deviations, and/or effect sizes. The authors may have computed these values, but if all statistical results were not included in the publication, a ‘no’ score was given for Item 8.
The 13 included research studies were classified into categories based on cut points reflecting the degree of methodological bias considered for each individual study. Studies with a score of 6–8 (three studies) were classified as having low risk of bias. Studies with a score of 3–5 (eight studies) were classified as having moderate risk of bias. Studies with a score of 0–2 (two studies) were classified as having a high risk of bias (
Study | Risk of Bias Item |
Total | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
x | x | x | x | x | 5 | ||||
x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 7 | ||
x | x | x | x | x | 5 | ||||
x | x | x | 3 | ||||||
x | x | 2 | |||||||
x | x | x | 3 | ||||||
x | x | x | x | 4 | |||||
x | x | x | x | x | 5 | ||||
x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | |
x | 1 | ||||||||
x | x | x | x | 4 | |||||
x | x | x | 3 | ||||||
x | x | x | x | x | x | 6 |
A data extraction table for the included research studies was created to provide a brief description of author names and publication date, sample characteristics, research design, creativity measures used and length of creativity assessment period, relevant creativity parameters assessed, exercise modality, intensity and duration, methods used for scoring creative products, as well as study outcomes and conclusions (
Study / |
Research Design | Creativity Measures (duration) | Creativity Parameters Assessed | Exercise Modality (intensity and duration) | Scoring | Outcomes and Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
within-subject | 1. TTCT Figural Tests A and B (10 minutes each form) |
Abstractness of titles, fluency, originality, elaboration, resistance to premature closure per TTCT scoring guide | Acute exercise protocol; primarily aerobic; self-selected (moderate: 30-minute) | Four independent authors scored all of these anonymous instruments in random order. Interrater reliability was high with Pearson Correlation medians of .818 (range .766–.886) for H1, .850 (range .789–.870) for H2, and .826 (range .781–.917) for H3. | Creative potential was elevated immediately post-exercise, relative to control ( |
|
between-subjects cross-over design | 30 RAT triads RAT (10 triads per condition) |
Flexibility, fluency, originality, elaboration | Cycle ergometer ((rest (6-minute), (moderate (6-minute), (and intense (6-minute)) exercise (12-minute total cycling time) |
RAT scored numerically via an index of total correct responses |
Intense exercise was associated with reductions in convergent thinking among inactive participants, compared to engaging in moderate exercise ( |
|
between-subjects | TTCT Figural tests A (pre) and B (3-minute post condition) | Fluency, originality and elaboration | Cycle ergometer (20-minute submaximal workload of 150 kpm at a rate of 55 rpm | The Scholastic Testing Service, Earth City, MO scored the assessments. However, no inter-rater reliability was reported. | There were no statistically significant differences between groups for any creativity measure assessed. | |
Control (no PA): |
Mixed model | AUT, Match Sticks and Consequences | Pre-study and post-study chronic creativity (before exercising) Match Sticks, Obvious Consequences, Remote Consequences and AUT | 8-week chronic training study (20-minute run for 16 sessions-2× per week) | Followed scoring guides for convergent and divergent thinking measures |
The experimental group outperformed the control group on the AUT ( |
Experimental Group 1: |
Mixed model | AUT, Match Sticks and Consequences | Group 1 and 2: Pre-study and post-study chronic creativity (before exercising) Match Sticks, Obvious Consequences, Remote Consequences |
Group 1: 8-week chronic training study: 20-minute run for 16 sessions (2× per week) |
Scoring was completed by the author and one assistant. No inter-rater reliability was reported | Both experimental groups performed better on the AUT relative to controls ( |
Mixed-model | AUT and Consequences | Acute creativity assessed at baseline and 5-minute post-exercise 1 week later (two visits) | 20-minute moderate-to-vigorous aerobic dance | No description of scoring methods was provided for replication. No inter-rater reliability was reported | The experimental group scored higher on the AUT than the control group ( |
|
Mixed-Model | TTCT Figural Test-Forms A (vertical parallel lines) and B (circles) |
Picture construction-original and detailed stories; multiple associations and divergent thinking | 3 aerobic exercise sessions per week for 8 weeks | Scoring per the TTCT manual |
The aerobic exercise group achieved increased figural fluency scores pre-to-post-intervention, compared to the control group ( |
|
Mixed-Model | Figural and Verbal versions of the TTCT tested in a group setting | Verbal: divergent thinking, fantasy, unique thinking |
Five outdoor running sessions per week for 8 weeks (no duration provided) | No description of scoring methods was provided for replication |
Pre-to-post scores for fluency, flexibility, and originality were marginally higher in the treatment group compared to controls ( |
|
Experiment 1: |
1) within-subject |
1) AUT (4-minute × 2 tasks consisting of 6 items total) and RAT (4-minute for 16 triads) |
Ideation, novelty, appropriate uses, appropriate novelty, and non-repetitive uses |
1) 12-minute seated followed by 12-minute treadmill walking |
All divergent thinking parameters were subject to a-priori defined, researcher operationalizations of creativity |
1) RAT performance decreased when walking ( |
between-subjects | Baseline: AUT (20-minute), game development, (40-minute) |
Creative fluency, flexibility, novelty (categorical), and global creativity (rank-ordered) | One-hour of self-selected vigorous-intensity physical activity for experimental group | Double-blinded scoring completed by three faculty and three student-raters (also participants in the study). |
Only the mean change in pre- to post-fluency was statistically significant for the experimental group ( |
|
Mixed Model | Unusual Uses Test of Creative Thinking (Tin Cans and Cardboard Boxes-5-minute per item) | Fluency, flexibility, and originality | 17 minutes of aerobic exercise defined as high-impact |
Scoring of unusual uses was based on ratings summed across a four-point scale |
Flexibility was marginally higher in the exercise condition, compared to the video condition ( |
|
Mixed Model | AUT (10 items-no duration provided) | No mention of specific creativity parameters was provided | Three outdoor running sessions per week (30-minute each session) for 12 weeks |
No procedures for scoring methods were reported. Thus, no inter-rater reliability was reported | The experimental group outperformed the control group on the AUT ( |
|
Study 1a. |
within-subject | 1a) DIT divergent thinking task |
1a) Scored task completion and task novelty |
Study 1 and 1b) standing, constrained walking-Figure-of-8 Walk Test (F8W), and unconstrained walking (roaming) conditions (no exercise duration provided-likely about 10-minute) | 1a) Creative novelty was rated by six experts on a scale of 1 (not original) to 5 (very original) for both experiments. Cronbach’s alpha was .79, and .70, respectively for the two experiments. |
1a) Novelty was highest in the roaming condition, compared to constrained walking and standing ( |
There are many different creativity assessments which may be utilized to experimentally assess acute creative potential in the laboratory. Four studies employed the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Figural Tests A and B (
Among the 13 manuscripts selected for this systematic review, all evaluated a hypothesized relationship between exercise manipulation and creativity performance. Of the 13 articles, three were published after 2013, two were published from 2002 to 2005, and eight were published from 1985 to 1998. Nine studies evaluated exercise and creativity within college-aged individuals, three studies assessed elementary and/or middle school children, and one study utilized a sample of adults at least 18 years of age. Nearly one-third of the included studies failed to report sample sizes per experimental or control group assignment. To this end, due to the substantial heterogeneity across study quality and methodology, a meta-analytic approach was not appropriate to include, and a qualitative review of research studies was chosen to avoid further convolution of conclusions suggested in the existing research on exercise and creativity (
Among the 13 experimental studies, 23% (
Among the 13 evaluated studies in this systematic review, 12 demonstrated some evidence of a beneficial effect of exercise on creativity. Further details on select studies, along with their limitations, are noted in the Discussion section. Among the 13 studies, eight evaluated moderate intensity and eight evaluated vigorous intensity exercise (two studies evaluated both moderate and vigorous intensity exercise). Regarding the eight studies focused on moderate intensity exercise, three demonstrated a significant effect of exercise on divergent thinking, specifically immediate and delayed improvements in figural creativity (
High intensity, chronic training studies (aerobic running durations of 20–30 minutes with 2–5 sessions per week) were shown to enhance divergent thinking performance (
Other exercise protocols permitted participants to engage in weight lifting, as well as any accessible form of aerobic indoor or outdoor exercise (e.g., swimming, running, brisk walking, cycling, or stair climbing), continuous or intermittent, with a troubling dismissal of experimental control. Even among studies with adequate experimental control, the exercise regimen remained flawed, as one study asked participants to engage in both moderate and intense exercise within the same bout, failing to indicate that measurements of creative potential may be distorted by residual fatigue, particularly for inactive individuals randomized to complete the intense condition prior to the moderate intensity condition.
A crucial point must be considered as researchers aim to extend the field creativity and exercise. Specifically, the time-point at which creativity is assessed relative to the exercise bout warrants scrupulous empirical attention. If exercise is expected to exert evaluable effects on creative potential, then experiments must be designed to illuminate how, why, when, and for whom these effects may occur. Researchers often assess creativity before and after a single exercise bout (
All articles included reported that creativity was either augmented or decreased as a function of exercise manipulation, failing to underscore the reservations inherent in creativity tasks designed to evaluate specific creative correlates (i.e., divergent thinking, convergent thinking, insight, imagination, analogy, metaphor, etc.). Therefore, stating that creativity,
Three studies matched the duration of the creativity task with the duration of exercise. These studies employed between-subject designs, but the practice of time-matching creativity assessments to exercise stimulus in between-subject designs is a compelling direction for researchers to consider, especially when evaluating exercise-induced cognitive resource depletion, and/or residual effects of exercise persisting for a shorter creativity assessment, with a creativity measure requiring sustained mental resource allocation equivalent in length to the exercise bout.
Scoring of creativity tasks was inadequate for the majority of included manuscripts. Perhaps authors adhered to best research practices, such as use of a validated scoring manual, blinded rating, utilization of more than one rater, or using more objective statistical measures to denote the originality facet of creativity, such as identifying cut-point percentages, using the
Limitations of this review include the collaborative efforts of only two researchers to search databases and access relevant manuscripts. Searching three databases is another potential weakness, as it is possible research experiments fitting our inclusionary criteria may have been overlooked. However, we feel confident the search strategies employed were sufficiently comprehensive. Moreover, the full text of the exercise and creativity experiments extracted were read in full, and reference lists were crossed-checked by each of the primary researchers to ensure a parsimonious, yet extensive review of the literature was satisfied. Although quality assessment methods were developed in alignment with the PRISMA checklist for reporting systematic reviews, it is possible some items were overlooked which may have increased or reduced the bias scores for these studies. Further, the items developed to indicate risk of bias were formulated by the two researchers involved in this review. Additional researchers may have provided supplementary insight to refine the items to reflect higher quality evaluation methods than those achieved herein. Nevertheless, we feel the present evaluations are contextually appropriate, fair, and may engender continued discussion and more informed experimental practices.
Extant empirical investigations of the plausible relationship between exercise and creativity have provided a robust platform for continued exploration. Thus far, the field is beginning to depart from a general recognition of conjectural anecdotes suggesting physical movement may liberate mental constraints and encourage creative cognitions and is approaching an evidenced-based understanding. The articles included herein provide modest support for exercise to meaningfully impact creative thinking. Beyond the inclusion of various exercise modalities, durations, and environments (detailed in the methods section) by which to assess creativity, there are specific recommendations from well-conducted research that should inform future methods of inquiry in this arena.
Research has yet to definitively uncover
There appears to be weak to modest support for acute, moderate-intensity exercise to benefit creativity. High-intensity exercise appears to induce a detrimental effect on convergent creativity when the creativity task and vigorous exercise are administered concurrently in unfit individuals. Interestingly, rest, or the absence of exercise may have a similar deleterious influence on convergent creativity among regular exercisers, however subsequent research should attempt to further question these speculations by examining valence-related effects of exercising on creativity scores. Specifically, when habituated, and perhaps enjoyable behaviors (e.g., exercise) are withheld, is substitution of a less enjoyable activity (e.g., forced inactivity) in an environment conducive to exercise, capable of inducing negative affect or amotivation, which may act synergistically to reduce creative performance? Conversely, moderate-intensity exercise has also been shown to impair convergent thinking performance, suggesting that, perhaps, convergent tests of creativity are susceptible to exercise-driven depletion of mental resources necessary to complete the task, or reductions in attention, motivation, or affectual responses. Although, it is possible these speculations are entirely misguided, as one study found exercise may be capable of enhancing creativity, independently of changes in mood state. Nevertheless, results from the studies included herein tend to suggest a potential immediate and residual effect of exercise participation on creative performance, specifically divergent fluency and flexibility assessed in the laboratory, with improvements in divergent flexibility more equivocal.
Aerobic training studies lasting at least 6 weeks in duration, and with at least two exercise session per week may have some utility on influencing adult and childhood creativity, however, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as many studies failed to employ a non-exercise control arm, or even standardize the exercise protocol within the experimental group. Additionally, one 8-week study showed no statistically significant improvements in 800-meter run performance, suggesting figural fluency was marginally augmented in the absence of fitness improvements. To date, it is unclear whether exercise benefits, undermines, or has no bearing on creative functioning. Therefore, research studies should focus on first identifying relationships in controlled laboratory environments, more robust to confounding factors unaccounted for in outdoor environments. Further, while it was unclear if creativity assessments were always administered in either an individualized or group setting. For all training studies, the exercise portion was completed in a group format, which may exert unintended effects on motivation, affect, and effort. All training studies included in this review failed to report one or all of the following statistical indices of practically meaningful results, including effect sizes, confidence intervals, or point estimates. Reliance on p-values is insufficient, incomplete, and misleading for any research agenda (
Despite the enigmatic challenges that emerge when assessing creativity in acute, laboratory settings, controlled measurement of creative potential is imperative for researchers to accumulate a comprehensive understanding of the various manipulations designed to address proposed associations between exercise and creativity. Controlled, empirical work will allow researchers to provide compelling evidence for theoretical mechanisms underlying the proposed exercise-creativity link. We suggest that an exercise-driven approach to measuring creativity is an exciting avenue for continued scientific investigation of the longitudinal effects of exercise on the creative person, including motivation and personality factors (
Future research is warranted to assess the influence of physical activity in early childhood on movement-based creativity outcomes, such as Torrance’s Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement Test (TCAM), which was designed on the precedent that young children manipulate and organize their thoughts in expressive, kinesthetic actions, as their proficiency in verbalization, writing, or drawing may be less cultivated at the preschool age (
Research investigating the utility for physical activity to influence creative cognitions in older adulthood is also warranted. Fifty-nine years is the oldest age reported to have been assessed in the exercise and creativity experiments reviewed herein, with the age range of that experiment ranging from 19 to 59 (
Weak evidence exists, to date, in support of the proposed relationships between exercise and creative thinking processes. Inferences of causality are difficult to accept, given the paucity of well-designed experiments in this domain of scientific investigation. Exercise and creativity researchers should first align their methodologies with unbiased measurement and evaluation practices, carefully designed to answer prudent explanatory questions. Restructuring the current framework requires a swift dismissal of ideological barriers to discovery, namely the conflation of creativity with divergent thinking, as well as unmitigated advancement into the dense tangle of speculative discourse aiming to contrive tenuous links between creativity and exercise. Experiments continue to employ minimal standardization, laboratory control, resistance to confounding, and rigorous, detailed scoring procedures, leaving the same questions unanswered and limiting valid conclusions. The prospects for growth and development in research examining creativity and exercise associations are astronomical, but only if the field commits to consistency and quality when assessing the potential for such relationships.
We declare no conflicts of interest and no funding was used to prepare this manuscript.
The authors have no funding to report.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.