Fo

FD

a

ARRAA

KCCFF

1

oofti

iaq

1h

Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

j o ur nal homep age : ht tp : / /www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / tsc

it between future thinking and future orientationn creative imagination

a-Chung Chiu ∗

epartment of Psychology and Social Work, National Defense University, Taipei 112, Taiwan, ROC

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 26 October 2011eceived in revised form 27 March 2012ccepted 12 May 2012vailable online 19 May 2012

eywords:reative thinkingreative imaginationuture thinkinguture orientation

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the impact of future thinking, and thefit between future thinking and future orientation on creative thinking. In Study 1, 83undergraduates were randomly assigned to three groups: 50-year future thinking, 5-yearfuture thinking, and the present-day thinking. First, the priming tasks, in which participantswere asked to imagine their lives 50 years from now, 5 years from now and in the presentday according to the condition respectively, were conducted. Subsequently, theirs’ perfor-mances of the Creative Imagery Task were examined. The results revealed that the 50-yearfuture thinking group performed better than the 5-year future thinking and the present-day thinking groups in originality and beyond reality. The only difference observed betweenthe 5-year future thinking and the present-day thinking groups was in practicality. In Study2, after taking a future orientation subscale developed by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), 77undergraduates were randomly assigned to the three future thinking groups as those inStudy 1. Their performances in the Creative Imagery Task were then examined. The resultsshowed that the participants in the present-day thinking group with low future orienta-tion and the participants in the 50-year future thinking group with high future orientationhad better performance in creative imagination in originality and beyond reality. In con-clusion, increasing the temporal distance of future thinking facilitates creative thinking.Additionally, one’s creative imagination can be improved when thinking timescales andfuture orientation are aligned.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Boniwell and Zimbardo (2004) indicated that time perspective, especially future time perspective, has a great impactn human behavior. Previous studies have focused on this issue. For example, exploring the relationships between futurerientation, threats, and challenges (Seginer, 2008), between future orientation and health (Adams & White, 2009), betweenuture thinking and neural characteristics (Szpunar, 2010), and among future thinking, happiness, well-being, and creativehinking (Förster, Friedman, & Liberman, 2004). These suggest the importance of future time perspectives or thinking onndividual’s behavior.

This study aims to explore the relationship between creative thinking and future thinking. Two main approaches are usedn defining creativity: the product approach and the cognitive process approach. The product approach defines creativitys the ability to develop ideas with novelty and appropriateness (Amabile, 1983; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Novelty is theuality of being new and original, and appropriateness is the invented ideas or things which meet the criteria of usefulness.

∗ Tel.: +886 2 2892 9194x12; fax: +886 2 2891 4169.E-mail address: fa-chung@yahoo.com.tw

871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.002

F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244 235

In the cognitive processes approach, the core of creative thinking is the remote association between the knowledge nodes inthe brain (Förster et al., 2004; Martindale, 1995; Mednick, 1962). According to the cognitive process approach, the meaningof creativity is the mental operating processes of new and useful products invention. In summary, creativity is the processof inventing new and useful products.

Future thinking might affect creativity. For example, Förster et al. (2004) manipulated the future temporal distance byasking participants to think of near future (i.e. one day from now) or distant future (i.e. one year from now). They found thatthinking about the distant future improves creativity. However, there has been little research on whether greater distantfuture thinking would have stronger influence on creativity (e.g. whether 5-year future thinking has stronger influence oncreativity than one-year future thinking). The maximum time scale used in the previous research is one year. Therefore, thefirst purpose of the current study is to investigate the impact of future thinking with extended time scales on creativity.

In addition, research has found that when an individual’s traits are in congruency with the situation, namely they fit eachother, his/her performance of creative thinking would be promoted (Friedman & Förster, 2000; Friedman & Förster, 2001;Friedman & Förster, 2005), his/her ability to detect unexpected objects would be increased (Memmert, Unkelbach, & Ganns,2010), and his/her goal attainment would be raised up (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998). Therefore, when investigating theeffect of the time scale of future thinking on creative thinking, it is possible to observe different creative thinking performancebetween the groups with different future orientation tendencies. For instance, distant future thinking time scale might fit theindividual with high future orientation; the data might suggest that individuals with high future orientation would benefitby manipulating future thinking. Following the idea mentioned above, the second purpose of this study is to investigate theimpact of the fit between future thinking and future orientation on the performance of creative thinking.

1.1. The impact of future thinking on creative thinking

Future thinking refers to the imagination of possible future events (D’Argembeau, Ortoleva, Jumentier, & Van der Linden,2010) or one’s ability to creatively imagine the limitless possibilities of hypothetical future scenarios (Fortunato & Furey,2011). The cognitive process of future thinking involves episodic and semantic memories. Episodic memory provides thematerials for individuals to imagine their future lives; semantic memory retrieves knowledge of the world providing indi-viduals to imagine things that might happen in the future. Although the future is unpredictable, individuals can simulatepotential future scenarios in their mind (Schacter, Addis, & Buckner, 2008; Szpunar, 2010).

Future thinking has great adaptive value. For example, when one considers potential consequences before taking action,one can go beyond current needs, which further benefits his/her long-term goal achievement (Boyer, 2008). Particularly,future thinking can improve behavioral flexibility (Suddendorf & Corballis, 2007), construct mental representations of pos-sible futures, and promote creative thinking (Förster et al., 2004). The following is a discussion of why future thinking is ableto enhance creative thinking from the perspectives of construal level theory (CLT).

According to CLT (Trope & Liberman, 2003), temporal distance alters one’s mental representation of the world, leadingto a change in one’s reaction to future events. When thinking about a greater distant future event (e.g. imagining your life 5years from now), the representations of the cognitive thinking would be more abstract, general, and de-contextualized, thatis, the high-level construals. Conversely, when thinking about a shorter distant future (e.g. imagining your life one day fromnow), an individual would think of the event in a more concrete and contextualized way, namely, low-level construals. Asa result, when one was required to ponder over the learning goals one year from now (representing the distant future), anindividual is likely to consider the goals as high-level ones, such as acquiring new knowledge. Conversely, when asking anindividual to consider their learning goals one day from now (representing the near future), he/she will concentrate on thelow-level and concrete goals, such as listening the psychology lecture attentively tomorrow.

Empirical evidence has shown the impact of future temporal distance on the level of construals. For example, Libermanand Förster (2009) manipulated the future temporal distance by requiring participants to write down their lives basedon either in the near future (one day from now) or in the distant future (one year from now). Consequently, a series ofhierarchical visual pictures (Navon, 1977) comprising a large global letter (e.g. a H in a larger font) made up from a numberof small letters (e.g. many Ss in smaller font) were displayed on the screen. In order to investigate the level of construalsin the information processing, participants were asked to identify the letter, either the large composite one or the smallconstituent one, they detected. Liberman and Förster’s (2009) findings support the CLT hypotheses that under the nearfuture condition, participants tended to focus the smaller constituent letters (detailed and low-level construals), and thoseunder the distant future tended to focus on the larger letters (comprehensive and high-level construals). In addition, anindividual’s temporal distance can affect the breadth of object categorization. For example, Nussbaum, Trope, and Liberman(2003) asked the participants to imagine a coming event (e.g. camping), which would take place in either in a week or in amonth and to classify 38 objects related to the event. The results showed that the events in distant future were classifiedinto smaller numbers of broader categories. Therefore, an individual’s cognitive processing is influenced by the processingof future thinking. That is, individuals use abstract and high-level representations when thinking about events in the distantfuture, and use concrete and low-level representations when thinking about the events in the near future. Different cognitive

styles of representation are related to creative thinking. The reasoning about is as below.

Creative thinking can benefit from abstract thinking (Finke, 1995; Förster et al., 2004; Ward, 1995). In other words, high-level and abstract cognitive representations can improve creative thinking performance. The empirical evidence from Försteret al. (2004) shows that those participants under the condition of distant future thinking, or who primed by a distant-future

2

ittiin

1totsTfii

1

Sat

tppatm

rmffltlftfmMtwfia

hjnrflfisfa(cifr

36 F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244

magination task had better performance in insight problems (Schooler, Ohlsson, & Brooks, 1993) and creative generationask (see Friedman & Förster, 2002) than those under the condition of near future thinking suggesting that thinking abouthe distant future can improve creative thinking. In the study of Förster et al., participants “traveled in time” for 2 min,magined their lives either one year from now (the distant future) or one day from now (the near future), and then engagedn insight problem and creative generation task. The results showed that the distant future group performed better than theear future group in the two tasks also suggesting that future thinking can enhance performance in creative thinking.

In summary, thinking about the distant future helps to prompt abstract and high-level representations (Liberman & Trope,998), and the abstract representations facilitate creative thinking. Therefore, the greater the future thinking distance is,he better one’s performance in creative thinking will be observed. However, Förster et al. (2004) examined the impactf future thinking on creative thinking by manipulating the temporal distance of one year at most. When increasing theemporal distance of the future time scale, the influence of future time scale on creative thinking might be increased, and theubstantial influence of the temporal distance of future thinking on the performance of creative thinking could be verified.herefore, it is necessary to examine the effects of future thinking with different temporal distances on creative thinking. Therst hypothesis of the present study is that increasing the temporal distance of future thinking will improve the performance

n creative thinking.

.2. The relationship between future thinking and creative thinking

Future orientation refers to the ability to imagine one’s future life (Lessing, 1972), to think one’s future (Cauffman &teinberg, 2000), and to imagine the environment of one’s future life (Greene, 1986). The distinction between future thinkingnd future orientation is as below: the former is a temporal state when an individual thinking about his/her future life, andhe later is the extent of how much an individual owns the stable trait of future temporal thinking.

Previous research have found an interaction between personality traits and situations, which is like the opinion of therait activation theory indicating that the personality trait-related situational factors can improve or impede the effect ofersonality traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003). For instance, regulatory-focus theory addresses issues pertinent to the fit betweenersonality traits and the environment. According to Higgins’ regulatory-focus theory (1997), two self-regulating systemsre identified: promotion-focus and prevention-focus motivation systems. Promotion focus refers to one’s motivation forhe fulfillment of aspirations and achievement of goals, such as acquiring a doctoral degree. Prevention focus refers to one’s

otivation for the fulfillment of responsibilities and goals for safety, such as to avoid failing an exam.Regulatory fit signifies a situation which occurs when people’s regulatory-focus traits correspond to the situation of

egulatory-focus. Therefore, cognitive performance is not merely affected by variations in the state of regulatory-focusechanisms (Friedman & Förster, 2000; Friedman & Förster, 2001; Friedman & Förster, 2005), but also by the fit of regulatory-

ocus mechanisms. Regulatory fit can enhance individual motivations (Higgins & Spiegel, 2004), improve cognitive processinguency (Lee & Aaker, 2004), and make people feel right about what they are doing. When people have a positive responseo a task that they engage in, the effect of regulatory fit can strengthen this positive response (Higgins, 2000) and furtheread to an improvement in the task performance. For example, Shah et al. (1998) examined the hypothesis of the regulatory-ocus fit theory based on the performance of participants in an anagram task. Their results showed that participants withraits of promotion focus performed better in situations which prime promotion focus; those with traits of preventionocus performed better in situations which prime prevention focus. Keller and Bless (2006) also demonstrated that one’s

ath performance improves when an induced regulatory-focus mechanism matched regulatory-focus traits. In addition, inemmert et al. (2010), the researchers first identified the participants’ regulatory-focus traits, and then randomly assigned

hem into either promotion or prevention-focus conditions. Their results found that the participants’ breadth of attentionas enhanced while regulatory-focus traits corresponded with regulatory-focus situations. This suggests that regulatoryt is beneficial for one’s performance in cognitive tasks, because it makes one feel good, enhances his or her breadth ofttention, consumes fewer cognitive resources, and further improves the one’s performance (Memmert et al., 2010).

The studies mentioned above have shown that regulatory fit leads to improvement in task performance, and this effectas also been observed in future time variables. In Trope and Liberman (2000), participants were asked to do preference

udgment for 6 positive events (such as eating a cake or a mother’s party) in the distant future (one year from now) or theear future (one day from now) conditions. The 6 events were classified into high-level and low-level construals. The resultsevealed that participants in the distant future condition preferred the events with high-level construals; those in the nearuture condition preferred the events with low-level construals. Therefore, when the temporal distance fits the construalevel, one’s preference of the event will be increased. The context of the current study focus on the investigation of thet between future thinking in different situations and future orientation of personality traits, though Trope and Liberman’study concentrated on the fit between temporal situations and stimulus options. However, prior studies of regulatory fit haveound that the fit between situations and personality traits can improve task performance. Additionally, studies of judgmentnd decision-making have shown that people prefer information or experiences in accordance with their own construal levelNussbaum et al., 2003; Trope & Liberman, 2000). For example, information in accordance with people’s attitudes, goals, or

oping strategies is regarded as more influential, as it is perceived to be more effective (Lavine & Snyder, 1996) and moremportant (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). In consequence, it is possible that one can perform better in creative thinking whenuture thinking required in a given situation, which matches one’s future orientation; in other words, the fit between theequirement of a given situation and one’s personality traits improves one’s performance in creative thinking.

F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244 237

In summary, matching situations with personality traits can contribute to task performance. Although little research inthe past has focused on the fit between future thinking required in the situation and future orientation traits, the effect ofa fit between the future temporal situation and the stimulus judgment on one’s preference of an event has been confirmed(Trope & Liberman, 2000). Moreover, when facing the stimuli which correspond with one’s coping strategies and goal, onewould have greater advantage in information processing. Thus, the second hypothesis of the current study is that the fitbetween future thinking traits and the situation can improve one’s performance in creative thinking.

2. The present research

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether future thinking has a substantive effect on creative thinking. Thepurpose of Study 1 is to examine Hypothesis 1: increasing the temporal distance of future thinking will keep improving theperformance of creative thinking. Previous studies explored this issue using a time scale of one year at most (Förster et al.,2004). To examine the effect of extended future thinking, in Study 1, we manipulated the future thinking time scale, whichis the independent variable, by increasing temporal distance to 5 years and 50 years, with present-day thinking as a basisfor comparison. The Creative Imagery Task developed by Finke (1990) was used to measure participants’ creative thinkingperformance, which is the dependent variable. According to the definition of creativity mentioned above, creativity is theability to invent original and useful products. Finke’s Creative Imagery Task requires participants to create products withcreativity or imagination, and its evaluation indexes are “originality” and “usefulness”, which is coherent with the concept ofcreativity. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply Finke’s Creative Imagery Task in this study to measure participants’ creativethinking performance.

The purpose of Study 2 is to examine Hypothesis 2: the fit between future thinking traits and the situation can improveone’s performance in creative thinking. The independent variables were the future thinking group (i.e. 50-year future think-ing, 5-year future thinking, and the present-day thinking), and the individuals’ future orientation. The future subscale ofthe Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), was used to measure participants’ future orientation.Participants’ future orientation was categorized according to their performance in the future subscale (i.e. high and lowfuture orientation). The 50th percentile was considered as the cut-off point to categorize the participants into high andlow future orientation groups. Participants who scored above the 50th percentile on the future subscale were assigned tothe group with high future orientation; those who scored below the 50th percentile were assigned to the group with lowfuture orientation. In Study 2, except for the manipulation of the independent variable “the future thinking group” was thesame as that in Study 1, the participants were required to invent a toy in the Creative Imagery Task instead of furniture. Ifparticipants’ performances of Creative Imagery Task in Study 1 and Study 2 with different requirements are consistent, ourdata would be more reliable and the effect would be more robust.

3. Study 1

3.1. Methods

3.1.1. ParticipantsA total of 83 undergraduates majoring in business administration at Fu-Jen Catholic University in Taiwan were recruited

in Study 1, including 33 males and 50 females. The mean of their age was 19.68 with a standard deviation of 1.62.

3.1.2. MeasuresCreative Imagery Task. In this task developed by Finke (1990), participants are required to choose three out of 15 objects

(see Fig. 1) to assemble imaginary objects. In Study 1, participants were asked to invent imaginary furniture. Initially, two

Fig. 1. Stimuli used in the Creative Imagery Task.Adapted from Finke (1990, p. 41).

2

is&tts

3

sgwgwptPfaa

3

3

pwatttTf

3

rr

abisto5sf5t5ots

tbtw

38 F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244

ndices (i.e. originality and practicality) were used in Finke’s task to score imaginary objects by trained raters. However, priortudies have shown that one important construct in creative imagination is “beyond reality” (Singer, 1999; Ward, 1994; Ward

Wickes, 2009). Hence, three indices were used in Study 1 to score imaginary objects: “originality”, how unusual and uniquehe invention is; “practicality”, how functional and usable the invention is; “beyond reality”, how advanced and imaginativehe invention is. The respective scores for “originality”, “practicality”, and “beyond reality” were obtained by averaging thecores from two trained raters.

.1.3. ProcedureThe present study was divided into two phases: the first phase is to administer a future-thinking priming task; the

econd phase is to administer a Creative Imagery Task. The participants were randomly assigned into three future thinkingroups: 50-year future thinking, 5-year future thinking, and the present-day thinking groups. Participants in each groupere required to think about how the world would be like according to the respective time scales of the future-thinking

roup, and then write it down. For instance, the instructions of the 50-year future thinking group were “Please think abouthat the world could be like 50 years from now and write it down.” This future thinking priming task took 6 min in the firsthase. Afterward, participants were asked to complete the Creative Imagery Task in the second phase. The instructions forhe Creative Imagery Task were as follows: “Imagination is the ability to form ideas or products which are new and beyond reality.lease use your imagination to undertake this task. Choose 3 of the objects below and then assemble them to create imaginaryurniture by drawing them in the box below. Please write down the number and the name of the objects used, and the functionsnd features of the imaginary object to the right of the box.” After the completion of the tasks, participants were given a giftnd informed of the purpose of the experiment.

.2. Results

.2.1. Manipulation checkTo ensure the validity of the future-thinking priming tasks, the content of participants’ responses to the future-thinking

riming task was assessed by two trained raters. A seven-point scale from 1 (close to the present) to 7 (far in the future)as used by the raters to evaluate participants’ descriptions of their imagery future world in different temporal distance

ccordingly. The results revealed that the reliability of two raters was r = .88. The results of a priori comparisons showedhat the temporal distance of future thinking of the 50-year future thinking group (M = 5.65, SD = 1.09) was greater thanhat of the 5-year future thinking group (M = 4.00, SD = 1.63) and the present-day thinking group (M = 1.74, SD = .77). Theemporal distance of future thinking of 5-year future thinking group was greater than that of the present-day thinking group.he statistical values were t(57) = 4.58, t(59) = 16.18, t(58) = 6.92, ps < .001, accordingly, suggesting that the manipulation ofuture thinking was valid in Study 1.

.2.2. The impact of temporal distance on creative thinkingThe inter-rater reliability was examined by applying correlation analysis. The findings showed that r = .70 in originality,

= .52 in practicality, and r = .63 in beyond reality. Based on the criteria of the effect size suggested by Cohen (1988, p. 82), = .50 can be considered as a large effect, the scoring of the Creative Imagery Task was reliable.

The means of participants’ performance in the Creative Imagery Task (originality, practicality, and beyond reality) werenalyzed by means of one-way (50-year future thinking, 5-year future thinking, and the present-day thinking groups)etween-groups ANOVA. Levene’s test for the homogeneity of variance assumption was violated in the scores of the three

ndices among groups; Fs(2, 80) > 4.68, ps < .01. If the homogeneity of variance assumption is broken, Welch’s adjusted methodhould be used instead (Howell, 2002). After applying Welch’s method, the statistical values of the adjusted ANOVA for thehree indices are shown as follows: The statistical value for originality was F(2, 50.82) = 14.09, p < .001, �2

p = .14; the resultsf post hoc comparisons in originality revealed that the 50-year future thinking group (M = 4.79, SD = .72) outperformed the-year future thinking group (M = 3.98, SD = 1.17) and the present-day thinking group (M = 3.33, SD = 1.36); there was noignificant difference between the 5-year future thinking group and the present-day thinking group. The statistical valueor practicality was F(2, 50.20) = 5.79, p = .005, �2

p = .07. The results of post hoc comparisons in practicality showed that the0-year future thinking group (M = 4.81, SD = .71) and the 5-year future thinking group (M = 4.46, SD = 1.40) performed betterhan the present-day thinking group (M = 3.91, SD = 1.20); there was no significant difference between the 50-year and the-year future thinking groups. The statistical value for beyond reality was F(2, 50.83) = 11.22, p < .001, �2

p = .10. The resultsf post hoc comparison in beyond reality found that the 50-year future thinking group (M = 5.21, SD = .90) outperformedhe 5-year future thinking group (M = 4.34, SD = 1.50) and the present-day thinking group (M = 3.62, SD = 1.63); there was noignificant difference between the 5-year future and the present-day thinking groups (see Table 1).

In summary, the results of the Creative Imagery Task showed that the findings were consistent with our hypothesis that

he 50-year future thinking group outperformed the 5-year future thinking and the present-day thinking groups. Differencesetween the 5-year future thinking and the present-day thinking groups were only observed in practicality. The data suggesthat the greater the temporal distance of the future thinking is, the stronger the effect of future thinking on creative thinkingill be observed, and further support the Hypothesis 1.

F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244 239

Table 1Mean and standard deviation of the performance of creativity in Study 1.

Future thinking group Present-day 5-Year future 50-Year future

M SD M SD M SD

Originality 3.33 1.36 3.98 1.17 4.79 .72Practicality 3.91 1.20 4.64 1.40 4.81 .71Beyond reality 3.62 1.63 4.34 1.50 5.21 .90

4. Study 2

4.1. Method

4.1.1. ParticipantsA total of 77 undergraduates majoring in business administration at Fu-Jen Catholic University in Taiwan were recruited

in Study 2, including 50 males and 27 females. The mean of their age was 20.02 with a standard deviation of 1.66.

4.1.2. Measures4.1.2.1. The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) consistsof 56 items for measuring five components of time perspective: past positive (PP), past negative (PN), present fatalistic (PF),present hedonistic (PH), and future (F). In this study, only the future subscale, comprised of 13 items, was used to measureparticipants’ general future orientation. Some example item statements are as follows: “I make lists of things to do”; “I keepworking at difficult, uninteresting tasks if they will help me get ahead.” The items were translated into Mandarin Chinese.Participants were asked to judge the extent to which the items reflect themselves by using a five-point scale from 1 (veryuntrue) to 7 (very true). The Cronbach’s ̨ for the subscale was .72.

4.1.2.2. Creative Imagery Task. The task used to measure creative thinking was the same as that in Study 1. The only differencewas that participants were required to choose three out of the 15 objects (from the three-dimensional object chart in Fig. 1)to create imaginary toys. The administration and scoring procedures were the same as those in Study 1.

4.1.3. ProcedureStudy 2 consisted of three phases. In the first phase, participants were required to complete the future subscale of the

Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) in order to measure their future orientation. In the secondphase, the future-thinking priming task was administered by requiring participants to think and write about the globalsituation on their respective time scales of 50 years from now, 5 years from now, and the present-day. The instructions,administration, and time spent to complete the future-thinking priming task were the same as those in Study 1. In the thirdphase, participants were asked to complete the Creative Imagery Task. Apart from asking participants to create imaginarytoys rather than furniture, the procedures to undertake the task were identical to that in Study 1. After the three phases, theparticipants were given a gift, and the purpose of the experiment was explained to them.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Manipulation checkTo ensure the validity of the future-thinking priming tasks, the content of participants’ responses to the future-thinking

priming task was assessed by two trained raters. A seven-point scale from 1 (close to the present) to 7 (far in the future)was used by the raters to evaluate participants’ descriptions of their imagery future world in different temporal distanceaccordingly. The results showed that the reliability of two raters was r = .81. The results of a priori comparisons showed thatthe temporal distance of future thinking of the 50-year future thinking group was greater than that of the 5-year futurethinking and the present-day thinking groups. The temporal distance of future thinking of the 5-year future thinking groupwas greater than that of the present-day group. The respective statistical values were t(55) = 5.82, t(57) = 7.81, t(56) = 3.17,ps < .001, accordingly, suggesting that the manipulation of future thinking was valid in Study 2.

4.2.2. The impact of future thinking and future orientation on creative thinkingThe inter-rater reliability was examined by applying correlation analysis. The finding showed that r = .56 in originality,

r = .50 in practicality, and r = .58 in beyond reality. Based on the criteria of the effect size suggested by Cohen (1988, p. 82),r = .50 can be considered as a large effect, the scoring of the Creative Imagery Task was reliable. The means of participants’

performance in the Creative Imagery Task (originality, practicality, and beyond reality) were analyzed by means of 3 (50-yearfuture thinking, 5-year future thinking, and the present-day thinking groups) × 2 (high-level vs. low-level future orientations)between-groups ANOVA. The criteria of the future orientation categorization (i.e. high-level vs. low level) were accordingto the 50th percentile of participants’ performance in the future subscale as a cut-off point.

240 F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244

Table 2Mean and standard deviation of the interaction of future thinking and future orientation in Study 2.

Future thinking group

Present-day 5-year future 50-year future

Future orientation Low High Low High Low High

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Originality 3.67 1.05 2.64 .84 3.07 1.05 3.37 1.07 3.69 1.20 4.08 .89Practicality 3.77 .78 3.55 .99 3.79 .91 3.45 .69 3.96 .66 4.27 1.13Beyond reality 3.23 1.12 2.32 1.06 2.75 1.01 3.05 1.08 3.00 1.06 3.88 .89

TtpoNmaf

g(.7tg

pdp

pei(fnF

tpwbf

Fig. 2. Interaction graph for future thinking and future orientation.

In terms of originality, Levene’s test for the homogeneity of variance assumption was confirmed, F(5, 71) = .57, p = .73.his suggested that the variances between the three groups were the same, so the use of ANOVA was justified. The results ofwo-way ANOVA (see Table 2) showed that there was a significant main effect for the future thinking group, F(2, 71) = 4.00,

= .02, �2p = .10. The results of post hoc comparisons revealed that the 50-year future thinking group (M = 3.89, SD = 1.05)

utperformed the 5-year future thinking group (M = 3.20, SD = 1.05) and the present-day thinking group (M = 3.70, SD = 1.30).o significant difference was observed between the 5-year future thinking group and the present-day thinking group. Theain effect of future orientation was not significant, F(1, 71) = .25, p = .62. The interaction between the future thinking group

nd future orientation was significant, F(2, 71) = 3.77, p = .03, �2p = .10; therefore, the analysis of simple main effect was

urther carried out (see Fig. 2A).The simple main effect of future orientation was not significant for the 50-year future thinking and 5-year future thinking

roups, Fs(1, 71) < .47, ps > .36. As for the present-day thinking group, participants with low orientation toward the futureM = 3.67, SD = 1.05) outperformed those with high orientation (M = 2.64, SD = .84) in originality, F(1, 71) = 7.23, p = .01, �2

p =23. The simple main effect of future thinking group was not significant for the participants with low future orientation, F(2,1) = 1.43, p = .25, but was significant for the participants with high future orientation, F(2, 71) = 7.07, p = .003. The data ofhe post hoc comparisons showed that the 50-year future thinking group (M = 4.08, SD = .89) outperformed the present-dayroup (M = 2.64, SD = .84).

In terms of practicality, the result of Levene’s test showed that the variances among groups were equal, F(5, 71) = 1.95, = .10, suggesting the use of ANOVA was valid. The results of two-way ANOVA showed that the main effects of the indepen-ent variables (i.e. future thinking groups and future orientation) and the interaction were not significant, Fs(2, 71) < 2.56,s > .09.

As for beyond reality, the results of Levene’s test showed that the variances between groups were equal, F(5, 71) = .45, = .82, suggesting the suitability of using ANOVA for follow-up analysis. The results of two-way ANOVA showed that the mainffect of the future thinking group was significant, F(2, 71) = 2.30, p = .05, �2

p = .08. The results of the post hoc comparisonsndicated that the 50-year future thinking group (M = 3.44, SD = 1.06) performed better than the present-day thinking groupM = 2.85, SD = 1.16). However, the 50-year future thinking and the 5-year future thinking groups did not differ significantlyrom each other; nor did the 5-year future thinking and the present-day groups. The main effect for future orientation wasot significant, F(5, 71) = .45, p = .82. The interaction between the future thinking group and future orientation was significant,(2, 71) = 4.98, p = .009, �2

p = .12; therefore, the analysis of simple main effect was further carried out (see Fig. 2B).The simple main effect of future orientation was significant for the 50-year future thinking group and the present-day

hinking group. The participants in the 50-year future thinking group with high future orientation (M = 3.88, SD = .89) out-

erformed those with low orientation (M = 3.00, SD = 1.06) in beyond reality, F(1, 71) = 5.29, p = .03, �2

p = .18. The participantsith low future orientation (M = 3.23, SD = 1.12) performed better than those with high orientation (M = 2.32, SD = 1.06) in

eyond reality, F(1, 71) = 4.47, p = .04, �2p = .18. The simple main effect of future orientation was not significant for the 5-year

uture thinking group, F(1, 71) = .49, p = .49. The simple main effect of the future thinking group was not significant for the

F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244 241

participants with low future orientation, F(2, 71) = .74, p = .48, but significant for the participants with high future orienta-tion, F(2, 71) = 7.27, p = .01, �2

p = .31. The results of the post hoc comparisons indicated that the participants with high futureorientation in the 50-year future thinking group (M = 3.88, SD = .89) performed better than the present-day thinking group(M = 2.32, SD = 1.06). However, the 50-year future thinking group and the 5-year future thinking groups did not differ fromeach other; nor did the 5-year future and the present-day thinking groups.

In summary, the results suggest that increasing the temporal distance of future thinking leads a greater impact onperformance in creative thinking. As for the effect of temporal fit (the interaction between future thinking and futureorientation), it was found that participants in the present-day thinking group with low future orientation outperformedthose with high future orientation in originality. The participants with high future orientation in the 50-year future thinkinggroup performed better than those in the present-day thinking group in originality. In terms of beyond reality, participantsin the 50-year future thinking group with high future orientation outperformed those with low future orientation; theparticipants in the present-day thinking group with low future orientation outperformed those with high future orientation;the participants with high future orientation in the 50-year thinking future group performed better than those in the present-day thinking group. No statistically significant difference was observed in Practicality. As a result, except for participants’performance in practicality, the results of Study 2 supported Hypothesis 2. It suggests that when participants’ future thinkingand future orientation are in congruence, their performance in creative thinking will be improved.

Additionally, since the results showed that the creative thinking performance of the participants with low future orienta-tion was enhanced in the present-day thinking condition, the creative thinking performance could be increased not only bythe fit between future thinking and future orientation but also by the fit between the present-day thinking and low futureorientation. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the effect of temporal fit was not significant in the 5-year thinking futurecondition. Although both the processes of imagining the life 5 years from now and 50 years from now fall into the definitionof future thinking, an effect of temporal fit was only observed in the condition with greater future temporal distance. Bycomparing the results of the 50-year future thinking group with the 5-year future thinking group, the substantive effect offuture temporal distance was verified.

5. General discussion

5.1. Summary of research results

The results of Study 1 revealed that the 50-year future thinking group outperformed the 5-year future thinking andthe present-day thinking groups in originality and beyond reality. There was no statistically significant difference betweenthe 5-year future thinking and the present-day thinking groups. Regarding practicality, both the 50-year and 5-year futurethinking groups outperformed the present-day thinking group. No statistically significant difference was observed betweenthe 50-year and 5-year future thinking groups. According to the results of Study 1, the greater the temporal distance of thefuture thinking was, the stronger the effect of future thinking on creative thinking was observed, Hypothesis 1 is confirmed.

The results of Study 2 showed that participants with low future orientation performed better in the present-day thinkingcondition; participants with high future orientation performed better in the 50-year future thinking group. However, theinteraction between future thinking and future orientation in practicality was not significant. Although the data of practicalityfailed to meet the expectation, the results of both originality and beyond reality showed the significant effect of the fitbetween future thinking and future orientation. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is validated. In addition, when comparing withthe 50-year future thinking group, neither of the participants with high or low future orientation showed significant effectof temporal fit in the 5-year future group, namely, increasing the temporal distance of future thinking made a substantialdifference.

5.2. Implications for future thinking

The findings of this study indicate that increasing the temporal distance of future thinking will promote the performancein creative thinking. According to CLT, the explanation of our findings is future thinking that facilitates abstract thinking,which improves creative thinking (Finke, 1995; Förster et al., 2004; Ward, 1995); therefore, performance in creative thinkingcan be improved through future thinking. In addition to the view of CLT discussed in the literature review, the following isthe discussion of other possible mechanisms accounting for the influence of future thinking on creative thinking.

Future thinking plays an important role in the well-being and happiness of an individual, while the majority of imagi-nation about the future is positive (Gilbert, 2006). When engaged in tasks requiring future thinking, the participants in thecurrent study were asked to imagine the pictures of a future world. That might possibly activate participants’ positive emo-tions. Previous studies have shown that positive emotions benefit the performance of creative thinking (De Dreu & Nijstad,2008; Fredrickson, 1998; Hirt, Devers, & McCrea, 2008; Isen, 1985; Schwarz, 2000). Isen (1999) proposed that there arethree main effects of positive affect on creativity: (1) positive affection offers access to more cognitive material, increasing

the associations among cognitive components; (2) positive affection induces defocused attention and a more complicatedcognitive context, expanding relevant knowledge of a task, and increasing the use of stimulus components; (3) positiveaffection increases cognitive flexibility, leading to a higher association probability among divergent cognitive components.Therefore, one explanation for the effect of future thinking on creative thinking may lie in that future thinking induces

2

pf

fiaitfgst

iTwodaattt

5

lOTcptai

ctRioepweT

t(os

5

tCptt

42 F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244

ositive emotions, which contribute to creative thinking. The positive emotions may mediate the relationship between theuture thinking and the creative thinking.

Other than the reasons mentioned above, regulatory focus motivation may play a role in the relationship between theuture thinking and the creative thinking. It is possible that participants’ promotion focus motivation was triggered whenmaging a future world. Empirical evidence has shown that people in a state of promotion focus motivation tend to applypproach strategies, which refers to the ways of reaching the happy target. The state of promotion focus motivation promptsndividuals processing the information in a more adventurous way, and further increases their performance in creativehinking (Friedman & Förster, 2001). In addition, Förster and Higgins (2005) indicated that people in a state of promotionocus tend to interpret a message in a more abstract way and even further inventing extra information, which is beyond theiven one. This leads individuals processing the information in a more exploratory and global way. Since the global processingtyle is beneficial to the performance of creative thinking, regulatory focus motivation might be another mediator betweenhe relationship between the future thinking and the creative thinking.

Furthermore, regarding the effect of future thinking on creative thinking, it is possible that asking the participants tomagine their future lives prompts them creating ideas which have to be beyond current knowledge and the physical realm.herefore, other than the abstract representations elicited by future thinking, the prospect effect might be another factorhich facilitates the effect of future thinking on creative thinking. For example, a stronger effect of the 50-year future thinking

n creative thinking than that of the 5-year future thinking observed in this study might be the outcome of participants’ifferent prospect between their lives in 5 years and 50 years. Because the participants might prospect that the productsppearing in a distant future (i.e. the 50-year future thinking condition) are more developed and more variance than thoseppear in a near future (i.e. the 5-year future thinking condition), which leads the divergence in creative thinking betweenhe 5-year and the 50-year future thinking groups. In this regard, it seems that not only the abstract representations but alsohe individuals’ prospect difference of the future function as mechanism or the mediate variable for the influence of futurehinking on creative thinking.

.3. Implications for the fit

Why can the fit between future thinking and future orientation improve the performance in creative thinking? To date,ittle research has focused on this issue, so the reasoning can only be made by using the studies of regulatory-focus fit.ne tends to be more motivated to undertake a task when experiencing regulatory fit (Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2000).herefore, the fit between future orientations and the future thinking situations may lead to stronger motivation to bootreative thinking, and further lead to the superior performance in creative thinking. On the other hand, regulatory fit makeseople think that what they are engaged in is correct. In other words, when engaging in future thinking, an individual withhe tendency of future orientation may feel right because the fit enhances the efficiency of creative thinking. The discussionbove mainly focused on the mechanisms of the fit from the perspective of motivations and preferences. The following willllustrate the fit from the perspective of cognition.

According to the motivation and preference mechanisms, the relationship between personality traits and cognitive pro-essing may account for the positive effect of a fit on performance in creative thinking. For example, people reflecting therait of extraversion tend to be selective when processing positively valenced information (Fox, 2008). In empirical studies,usting and Larsen (1998) found that the reaction time of extraverts on judging positive stimuli was faster than that of

ntroverts, suggesting that extroverted people are more effective in processing positive information. By drawing an anal-gy between the above and the variable of future thinking, it is possible that people with high future orientation are moreffective when engaging in future thinking; people with low future orientation are more effective when engaging in theresent-day thinking. In other words, people with high future orientation tend to process future-thinking materials; peopleith low future orientation tend to process the present-day thinking materials. As a result, the stimulus processing is more

ffective when one processes the stimuli which correspond to his/her personality traits, namely, the trait congruence effect.hat is, the time thinking priming would have stronger influence when it corresponds to one’s personality trait.

In addition, the results of Study 2 not only showed the fit between future thinking and high future orientation, but alsohe fit between the present-day thinking and low future orientation. Therefore, the effect of the future-thinking time scaleincluding present and future) on creative thinking depends on the level of one’s future orientation. This study is not focusingn the effect of a fit between future thinking and future orientation but the effect of the fit between future- thinking timecale and future orientation.

.4. Suggestions for future research

The data of this study showed that future thinking can improve creative thinking. Previous studies have also demonstratedhat future thinking can be generated when one involves in creative problem solving and divergent thinking (Suddendorf &

orballis, 1997). Therefore, in the future, researchers can conduct a follow-up survey of participants’ future thinking aftererforming a creative task. If one’s future thinking performance would be enhanced after undertaking creative thinkingask, it signifies that creative thinking and future thinking are possibly bi-directionally linked; namely, it implies that futurehinking and creative thinking might have shared processes or constructs.

F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244 243

Functional neuroimaging studies have found that recalling past events and imaging future events rely on the sameregion of the brain (Botzung, Denkova, & Manning, 2008; D’Argembeau et al., 2008; Szpunar, Watson, & McDermott, 2007).However, it is not clear whether past thinking has a similar impact on creative thinking as future thinking. Therefore, theissue concerning the impact of past thinking on creative thinking can be further investigated. Certainly, the fit of past thinkingis also an interesting issue for future research.

Furthermore, the spatial distance of events was found to have influence on one’s construction of knowledge (Trope& Liberman, 2010). Jia, Hirt, and Karpen (2009) demonstrated that spatial distance can improve performance in creativethinking by manipulating long and short spatial distances to elicit high and low-level construals respectively. Based on thefindings of Jia et al., a future research can investigate the effect of a fit between spatial distance preference and spatial-thinkingsituations.

Acknowledgment

I thank Priscilla L.-P. Tu for her help with data collecting and for helpful comments on the early version of this paper.

References

Adams, J., & White, M. (2009). Time perspective in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and body mass index. Health Psychology, 28, 83–90.Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.Boniwell, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Balancing time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In P. A. Linley, & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in

practice. NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Botzung, A., Denkova, E., & Manning, L. (2008). Experiencing past and future personal events: Functional neuroimaging evidence on the neural bases of

mental time travel. Brain and Cognition, 66(2), 202–212.Boyer, P. (2008). Evolutionary economics of mental time travel? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 219–224.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Publishers.Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences and

the Law, 18, 741–760.D’Argembeau, A., Ortoleva, C., Jumentier, S., & Van der Linden, M. (2010). Component processes underlying future thinking. Memory and Cognition, 38(6),

809–819.D’Argembeau, A., Xue, G., Lu, Z. L., Van der Linden, M., & Bechara, A. (2008). Neural correlates of envisioning emotional events in the near and far future.

Neuroimage, 40(1), 398–407.De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Mental set and creative thought in social conflict: Threat rigidity versus motivated focus. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 95(3), 648–661.Finke, R. A. (1990). Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Finke, R. A. (1995). Creative insight and preinventive forms. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 255–280). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.Förster, J., Friedman, R., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177–189.Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global vs local processing fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631–636.Fortunato, V. J., & Furey, J. T. (2011). The theory of MindTime: The relationships between future, past, and present thinking and psychological well-being

and distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 20–24.Fox, E. (2008). Emotion science: Cognitive and neuroscientific approaches to understanding human emotions. Palgrave Macmillan.Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79(4), 477–492.Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001–1013.Friedman, R., & Förster, J. (2002). The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

38, 41–55.Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 263–275.Gilbert, D. T. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Greene, A. (1986). Future time perspective in adolescence: The present of things future revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 99–113.Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217–1230.Hirt, E. R., Devers, E. E., & McCrea, S. M. (2008). I want to be creative: Exploring the role of hedonic contingency theory in the positive mood-cognitive

flexibility link. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 214–230.Higgins, E. T., & Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. In R. F. Baumeister Baumeister,

& K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 171–187). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Idson, L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic

intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252–274.Isen, A. M. (1985). Asymmetry of happiness and sadness in effects on memory in normal college students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114,

388–391.Isen, A. M. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529–550.Jia, L., Hirt, E. R., & Karpen, S. C. (2009). Lessons from a Faraway land: The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 45(5), 1127–1131.Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2006). Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: The interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory mechanisms

on test performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 393–405.Lavine, H., & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive processing and the functional matching effect in persuasion: The mediating role of subjective perceptions of

message quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 580–604.Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134.

2

L

L

L

M

MM

NN

RS

S

SS

S

SS

S

S

SS

TTTTWW

W

Z

44 F.-C. Chiu / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 234– 244

essing, E. E. (1972). Extensions of personal future time perspective, age and life satisfaction of children and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 6,457–468.

iberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: How global versus local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 203–216.

iberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construaltheory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.

artindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, & T. B. Ward (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

ednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.emmert, D., Unkelbach, C., & Ganns, S. (2010). The impact of regulatory fit on performance in an inattentional blindness paradigm. Journal of General

Psychology, 137, 129–139.avon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.ussbaum, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 485–497.usting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1998). Personality and cognitive processing of affective information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(2), 200–213.chacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2008). Episodic simulation of future events: Concepts, data and applications. Annals of the New York Academy

of Sciences, 1124, 39–60.chooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,

122, 166–183.chwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 433–440.eginer, R. (2008). Future orientation in times of threat and challenge: How resilient adolescents construct their future. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 32(4), 272–282.hah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293.inger, J. L. (1999). Imagination. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.ternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.uddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 123,

133–167.uddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,

30(03), 299–313.zpunar, K. K. (2010). Episodic future thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 142–162.zpunar, K. K., Watson, J. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Neural substrates of envisioning the future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA,

104, 642–647.ett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.rope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876–889.rope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421.rope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.ard, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40.ard, T. B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas? In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognitive approach (pp. 157–178). Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.ard, T. B., & Wickes, K. N. S. (2009). Stable and dynamic properties of category structure guide imaginative thought. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1),

15–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633376imbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

77(6), 1271–1288.