The primary objective of this study was to contribute to the growing research discipline investigating the effects of physical exercise on divergent thinking creativity performance. Thirty‐two students participated in this two‐visit, within‐subject intervention. Individuals consented to participate in two randomized, and counterbalanced, experimental conditions, consisting of 15 min of active treadmill walking and an inert, seated control incubation period. Creativity was assessed at baseline and post‐exercise (and control) via the Instances Creativity Task (ICT). Creativity scores for changes in fluency (F(1, 31) = 2.90, p = .10) were not statistically significant across the experimental conditions. Originality scores were higher at baseline and follow‐up when compared to the exercise condition (F(1, 31) = 6.82, p = .01). However, there was no statistically significant condition × time interaction effect (F(1, 31) = 1.78, p = .19). Further analyses demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental conditions on recall score (F(1, 31) = 1.04, p = .32). All models indicated statistically significant main effects for time: fluency (F(1, 31) = 131.17, p < .001); originality (F(1, 31) = 36.54, p < .001); and recall (F(1, 31) = 51.75, p < .001). These findings suggest that both active and inert creative incubation periods may similarly enhance subsequent divergent thinking performance.

中文翻译：

---

主动还是惰性？潜伏期创新思维的实验比较

这项研究的主要目的是为不断发展的研究学科做出贡献，以研究体育锻炼对发散性思维创造力表现的影响。32名学生参加了这两次访问的主题内干预。个人同意参加两种随机且平衡的实验条件，包括主动跑步机行走15分钟和惰性，坐姿控制潜伏期。通过实例创造力任务（ICT）在基线和运动后（和控制）评估创造力。在 整个实验条件下，流利度变化的创造力分数（F（1，31）= 2.90，p = .10）在统计上并不显着。独创性与运动状况相比，基线和随访时得分更高（F（1，31）= 6.82，p  = .01）。但是，没有统计学上的显着条件×时间相互作用效应（F（1，31）= 1.78，p  = .19）。进一步的分析表明，在回忆条件上的实验条件之间没有统计学上的显着差异（F（1，31）= 1.04，p  = .32）。所有模型均显示出在时间上具有统计学意义的主要影响：流畅度（F（1，31）= 131.17，p  <.001）; 独创性（F（1，31）= 36.54，p  <.001）；和召回率（F（1，31）= 51.75，p  <.001）。这些发现表明，活跃的和惰性的创造性潜伏期都可以类似地增强随后的发散性思维表现。