“…Since past EMA studies have not attempted to measure creative ideation performance, we hope that the integration of this novel approach into the research literature will stimulate a move of creativity research from the laboratories into more naturalistic environments (Silvia, 2017). Although the ABC does not inform about the idiosyncratic creative activities people choose to do in their natural environments and about everyday creativity (Ilha Villanova & Pina e Cunha, 2020), it could be combined with the EMA of self-reported creativity (see, e.g., Campbell et al., 2020 for a similar approach with respect to cognitive performance, for valuable suggestions see Cotter & Silvia, 2019) and the use of text-based methods to assess creativity (e.g., Amabile et al, 2005; Hagtvedt et al, 2019; McKay et al, 2021). In the future, it will be vital to conduct more research (1) on types of applied tasks, (2) on the correlations with real-world and natural occurring creativity (e.g., Diedrich et al, 2018), and (3) on originality judgment to provide optimal statistical properties to capture within-person variance of creative ideation performance, such as centering originality scores within-person.…”