Oleson and Zubek (1970) found that sensory deprivation for 24 hr. did not produce significant deterioration in creative thinking and offered several possible explanations for this datum. It is suggested that the length of the test battery, a neglected variable in sensory deprivation research, may be a crucial factor; the administration of tests, by disrupting the deprivation situation, diminishes the very effect it is designed to measure.
References
1.
GuilfordJ. P.The nature of creativity. In RussellR. W. (Ed.), Frontiers in psychology. Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1964 Pp. 125–131.
2.
OlesonD. S.ZubekJ. P.Effect of one day of sensory deprivation on a battery of open-ended cognitive tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 31, 919–923.
3.
RossiA. M.General methodological considerations. In ZubekJ. P. (Ed.), Sensory deprivation: fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969 Pp. 16–43.
4.
SuedfeldP.The cognitive effects of sensory deprivation: The role of task complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1968, 22, 302–307.
5.
SuedfeldP.Changes In intellectual performance and in susceptibility to influence. In ZubekJ. P. (Ed.), Sensory deprivation: fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969 Pp. 126–166. (a)
6.
SuedfeldP.The delectable “D” and the ubiquitous “U.”Paper read at the University of Vermont-NASA Conference on Arousal Theory, Burlington, Vt, 1969 (b)
7.
SuedfeldP.LandonP. B.Motivational arousal and task complexity: Support for a model of cognitive changes in sensory deprivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83, 329–330.
