The electrophysiological correlates of experiencing novelty in creative advertising were studied in 28 healthy subjects using event-related potentials. Participants viewed images that were difficult to interpret until a description was presented providing either a creative description (CD) featuring an unexpected description of the image based on the original advertisement, or a normal description (ND), which was a literal description of the image (and served as a baseline condition). Participants evaluated the level of creativity of the description. The results showed that the N2 amplitude was higher for CDs than for NDs across middle and right scalp regions between 240 and 270 ms, most likely reflecting conflict detection. Moreover, CDs demonstrated greater N400 than NDs in a time window between 380 and 500 ms, it is argued that this reflects semantic integration. The present study investigates the electrophysiological correlates of experiencing novelty in advertising with ecologically valid stimuli. This substantially extends the findings of earlier laboratory studies with more artificial stimuli.

Although it is increasingly recognized that evaluation is a key phase for a two-fold creativity model, the neural model is not yet well understood. To this end, we constructed a theoretical model of creative evaluation and supported it with neural evidence through event-related potentials (ERPs) technology during a creative advertising task. Participants were required to evaluate the relationship between target words and advertising that systematically varied in novelty and usefulness. The ERPs results showed that (a) the novelty-usefulness and novelty-only conditions evoked a larger N1-P2 amplitude, reflecting an automatic attentional bias to novelty, and (b) these two novelty conditions elicited a larger N200-500 amplitude, reflecting an effort to process the novel content; (c) the novelty-usefulness and usefulness-only conditions induced a larger LPC amplitude, reflecting that valuable associations were formed through retrieval of relevant memories. These results propose a neural model of creative evaluation in advertising: the N1-P2, N200-500, and LPC should be the key indices to define three sub-processes of novelty perception, conception expansion, and value selection, respectively.

Belief bias is the tendency to accept conclusions that are compatible with existing beliefs more frequently than those that contradict beliefs. It is one of the most replicated behavioral findings in the reasoning literature. Recently, neuroimaging studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and event‐related potentials (ERPs) have provided a new perspective and have demonstrated neural correlates of belief bias that have been viewed as supportive of dual‐process theories of belief bias. However, fMRI studies have tended to focus on conclusion processing, while ERPs studies have been concerned with the processing of premises. In the present research, the electrophysiological correlates of cognitive control were studied among 12 subjects using high‐density ERPs. The analysis was focused on the conclusion presentation phase and was limited to normatively sanctioned responses to valid–believable and valid–unbelievable problems. Results showed that when participants gave normatively sanctioned responses to problems where belief and logic conflicted, a more positive ERP deflection was elicited than for normatively sanctioned responses to nonconflict problems. This was observed from −400 to −200 ms prior to the correct response being given. The positive component is argued to be analogous to the late positive component (LPC) involved in cognitive control processes. This is consistent with the inhibition of empirically anomalous information when conclusions are unbelievable. These data are important in elucidating the neural correlates of belief bias by providing evidence for electrophysiological correlates of conflict resolution during conclusion processing. Moreover, they are supportive of dual‐process theories of belief bias that propose conflict detection and resolution processes as central to the explanation of belief bias.