123C Creativity: midterm #1, Ch 1 & 2

Getzels & Jackson (1962) conclusion

conclusion: creativity is NOT distinct from general intelligence (substantial positive correlation) ; one can predict the other

Getzels & Jackson (1962) experiment

• test relationship between creativity and intelligence

• various tests of creativity

• significant and substantial correlation between “creativity” scores and traditional intelligence measures

Wallach & Kogan (1965) vs Getzels & Jackson (1962)

• questioned Getzels and Jackson

  • Getzels & Jackson tests were too diverse, also measured IQ, not solely creativity

  • needed new ways of conceptualizing/measuring creativity

• corrected execution of Getzel’s & Jackson

  • issues with testing procedure: used traditional test administering, called them “tests'“ like in a classroom, timed

  • suggestion for testing procedure: non-test approach, more relaxed timing

• differences from Getzels & Jackson:

  • never referenced “tests”

  • researchers were introduced as visitors interested in how kids play

  • 2 wk observation of 5th graders age 10-11 to get them familiar w the researchers

convergent thinking

leads to a single correct/best outcome

info is processed, converged to one answer

divergent thinking

numerous possible solutions, equally good

involves considering many equally good ideas/possibilities

ex: “make a list…”

• tests of this thinking are often used in tests of creativity, where the number and originality of people’s responses can be judged

Wallach and Kogan creativity measures

measured uniqueness and number of answers the child generated

• instances

• alternate uses

• similarities

• pattern meanings

• line meanings

aspects of divergent thinking

fluency, flexibility, elaboration, originality

fluency

an aspect of divergent thinking

number of answers (richness of thought)

flexibility

aspect of divergent thinking

number of times the focus of thought shifts

elaboration

aspect of divergent thinking

number of times subject adds an extra element to an idea to expand on it

originality

aspect of divergent thinking

number of appropriate but rarely given answers

Wallach & Kogan (1965) findings

typical indicators of general intelligence are largely independent/distinct from original creative thinking

• also used 10 measures of general intelligence

• positive correlation between divergent tasks ( = tasks all measured the same thing)

• low correlation between creativity and intelligence measures

Wallach and Wing (1969) experiment

Question: is a person’s real-world achievement predicted better by their scores on creativity (divergent thinking) tests or their scores on general intelligence (convergent thinking) tests?

• incoming freshmen university students

  • General intelligence measured by SAT scores

  • creativity measured by performance on divergent thinking tasks

  • real-world achievement investigated in leadership, music, drama/speech, art, writing, and science

Wallach and Wing (1969) results

divergent thinking measures were more highly correlated with real-world success

creativity is a better predictor or real-world success (beyond just getting good grades in school)

threshold theory

• traditional intelligence and creativity might not be completely independent; still some relationship

• a certain minimum level of intelligence is necessary for creative performance to be possible

• as IQ increases, people become more capable of creative thinking (potential for creativity, not a guarantee)

  • triangle graph

Jauk et al (2013) experiment

• investigate threshold theory regarding creative potential and achievement

  • creative potential measured with divergent alternative uses tasks and instances tasks

  • rated creativity on 4-point scal

  • measured creative achievement by asking questions about accomplishment in 8 different domains

  • 4 measures of intelligence tests

Jauk et al (2013) results

• evidence of necessary level (threshold) of intelligence found for potential, NOT achievement

• IQ threshold = 100 when creative thinking is defined liberally (only considered top 2 most creative answers for a subject)

• IQ threshold = 120 when creative thinking is defined strictly (considered average of all of subject’s answers) ; harder to be considered creative

• NO threshold found for real-world creative achievement

conclusion = there is a threshold for creative potential, but not achievement (IQ = 100-120)

Mednick’s associative theory of the creative process

• most important finding: original, creative ideas tend to be remote

• we should take our time when solving a problem so that we are more likely to get to those more remote original solutions

• created the Remote Associates Test (RAT) as a test of creative ability

Mednick’s suggestion about creative people

better at finding original, remote ideas

Remote Associated Test (RAT)

• developed by Mednick

• subject is given 3 words that have some association between them, and the subject must try to find the remote idea that connects them all together

• significant correlation between subjects ability to find original, flexible solutions to problems & scoring well on this test

• higher score = higher insight on problems where the solution is not immediate

criticisms of the RAT

• score on the test tends to be highly correlated with verbal ability

  • might actually be measuring something other than creativity

analogically thinking

using information from one domain (the source of the analogy) to help solve a problem in another domain (the target)

ex: eli whitlney’s cotton gin after seeing a cat try to catch a chicken through a fence

Hans Welling (2007)

divided creative processes up into 4 basic operations:

• application, analogy, combination, abstraction

application

¼ basic creative cognitive operations established by Welling (2007)

• application of knowledge in its habitual (common) context

  • same domain, but in new, real-world situations

• creativity is required to apply existing knowledge in a real-world situation

• ex: driving — know the rules of the road, use them in new places and situations

analogy

¼ basic creative cognitive operations established by Welling (2007)

• transposition of a conceptual structure from a habitual context to a novel context, where there is an abstract relationship between the elements of the original context elements of the new context

  • applying to a different domain

• ex: knowledge in fishing and applying it to your relationship issues…patience, moving spots, changing “bait”

combination

¼ basic creative cognitive operations established by Welling (2007)

• merging of two or more (preexisting and different) concepts into one new idea

• different from analogy—requires creating a new conceptual structure from two previously separate concepts

• ex: moveable Gutenberg printing press = coin punch + wine press (originally 2 unrelated concepts)

abstraction

¼ basic creative cognitive operations established by Welling (2007)

• a pattern, relationship, or organization present in a NUMBER of different perceptions or contexts

• higher levels correspond to less reliance on the particular concrete elements involved in a particular perception or context

• ex: several ways to logically divide 6 figures into two group of three…88% of subjects found the concrete solutions first and only later found the more abstract (if at all)

Welling (2007) findings

• high creativity involves combination and abstraction operations

  • require deep reconceptualization of ideas

  • often a long-term process—sometimes occurring over many years

• everyday creativity seems more often involved with application and analogy operations

Gick and Holyoak (1980; 1983)

• gave subjects Duncker’s radiation problem

  • 10% initially found the solution

• some subjects also exposed to a story

  • solution rate rose to 30%

• some subjects were explicitly told that story would be helpful

  • solution rate rose to 92%

Gick and Holyoak (1980 ; 1983) conclusion

creative thinking is triggered by analogically thinking, but analogies are hard to recognize in everyday life

problem finding

becomes important when solving ill-defined problems

• does not involve the same form of creativity as problem solving

  • = a person may be good at one without being good at the other

• usually requires creativity simply to identify and describe those problems in order to even start considering a solution

• we may feel that something is wrong, but not know exactly what the problem is

example: unhappy in your relationship, but not sure what the actual problem is

well-defined problems

• most often involve problem solving

1. presented in a clear/unambiguous fashion

2. well defined “current state” and “goal”

3. clear path to goal (general approach) and clear when goal has been reached

examples:

• mazes: indicated start and finish

• figuring out the price of an item that is on sale for 20% off

• pulling socks out of a drawer till you have a pair that match

ill-defined problems

• most often involve problem finding … most real-world problems

1. doesn’t yield a particular, certain, correct answer

2. may be conflicting data/info

3. goal may be vague/ambiguous

examples: (ambiguity, not specific enough to solve)

• writing a “great novel”

• finding the perfect mate

Wallace’s Stage Model of Creativity (1926)

divides creativity into 4 stages: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification

preparation

Stage 1 of Wallace’s Stage Model of Creativity

• activities involved:

  • ID the problem (finding) and describe

  • gather info about the problem

  • explore various aspects to the problem

• summary: pinning down the problem and collecting info for solving

• period of initial work on the problem, spending time and effort to learn about the nature of the problem, consider different possible angles from which to attack it

incubation

Stage 2 of Wallace’s Stage Model of Creativity

• activities involved:

  • stepping back after a period of effort, with no direct effort being exerted on the problem

  • unconscious processing

• when discoverer is away from usual workplace

• example: Archimedes displacement (Eureka!)

  • took a bath to rest from thinking, realizes water displaced = V of crown

illumination

Stage 3 of Wallace’s Stage Model of Creativity

• also known as insight

• “a-ha” experience

• occurs if incubation was successful

• feels sudden (controversy over whether it is sudden, or just our awareness of the idea is sudden)

verification

Stage 4 of Wallace’s Stage Model of Creativity

• evaluate the worth of the insight

• elaboration of potential solution into its complete form

• not all insight send up being good ideas, and some don’t pan out as actual working solutions

  • could solve the problem but create additional problems, etc.

Smith & Dodds (1999)

described various theories explaining how incubation might aid problem solving:

• conscious work theory

• recovery from fatigue theory

• opportunistic assimilation theory

• remote association theory

• forgetting inappropriate mental sets

conscious work theory

a theory described by Smith & Dodds (1999) about incubation

• working on simple repetitive tasks provides time to mull over a problem

• we tend to forget the brief spurts of thinking that occur, but remember last step that leads to the solution = feels unconscious

recovery from fatigue theory

a theory described by Smith & Dodds (1999) about incubation

• after the work/exertion of the preparation stage, the incubation period allows time to rest/recover

• once we rest, the mind’s normal processes can function better for solving the problem at hand

opportunistic assimilation theory

a theory described by Smith & Dodds (1999) about incubation

• failures to solve the problem during prep are stores in memory

  • during incubation, we find the solution in everyday life by chance, the helpful stimulus is assimilated into the problem solving process and the solution is allowed to appear

remote association theory

a theory described by Smith & Dodds (1999) about incubation

• only after dominant responses have been retrieved will enew ideas be created

• incubation occurs only after common solutions have already been tried without success during prep

  • exhaust strongly associated connections we already have, then move to incubating creative ideas

forgetting inappropriate mental sets

a theory described by Smith & Dodds (1999) about incubation

• incorrect is dominant, need to forget it

• competition between possible responses/solutions

• when a stronger, more obvious solution is incorrect, it must be forgotten before the problem can be solved

  • incubation allows these dominant but incorrect responses to be forgotten

insight hypotheses

• Selz’s schema completion hypothesis ; filling in a gap

• Reorganization of visual information hypothesis ; look at the problem in a new way

Martinsen (1995)

• assess experience, expertise, information, and insight

• assess subjects’ experience solving problems in various domains

• compare experience level with scores on insight problems in these domains

• for many people, there may be an optimal level of knowledge to enable creative thinking, where increased knowledge can be helpful to a point

  • above an optimal level of knowledge, creativity may be inhibited (increased functional fixedness, etc.)

conventions

• typical/widely accepted ways of behaving

• formal or informal

• aren’t necessarily bad, but can restrain/inhibit creative thought

Kohlberg’s Stages of Conventional Thinking

• pre conventional

• conventional

• post conventional

preconventional stage

first stage in Kohlberg’s Theory

1. children have not yet developed thinking allowing understanding/use of convention

2. children not aware of what’s “conventional” - can’t think/act in conventional ways

conventional stage

second stage in Kohlberg’s Theory

1. child has learned conventions and knows what others expect of them

2. greatly concerned with behaving in conventional ways

3. child tends to be very susceptible to peer pressure

preconventional stage attitudes

• fosters creative thinking

• don’t care/think about conventions

• involved in play activities based on own interests (uninhibited, unconventional, and creative)

conventional stage attitudes

• sensitive and appreciative of convention

• makes creativity difficult

• convention is a type of conformity, and creativity requires non-conformity

post conventional stage

third stage in Kohlberg’s Theory

1. person uses conventions as ONE source of information, but also thinks for themself

2. less concern with acting conventionally

• not everyone makes it to this stage

post conventional stage attitudes

person understands conventions, what is typical and what is expected of them, but also things for themselves and are not overly-concerned with acting in a conventional manner

fourth-grade slump

50% of 9 year old children show a reduction in their original/creative thinking

• conventional stage

Goertzel & Goertzel (1962) results

• many eminent people’s family lives contained adversity

• only 58/400 eminent people have “supportive, warm, relatively untroubled homes

MacKinnon (1960)

investigated effective people ; emotional stability or personal soundness

conclusion: adversity seems to be fairly common in highly creative people

MacKinnon (1960) results for Emotionally-stable people

1. childhoods with continuing presence of both parents

2. economically secure homes

3. fathers described as respected citizens and worthy of emulation

4. mothers were loving and closely attending/controlling of them at home

5. had friendly/positive relationships with siblings

6. likely to participate in competitive sports (more robust/vigorous)

MacKinnon (1960) results for highly-creative people

• agree with statement: “as a child, my home my life was not as happy as that of most others”

• disagree with statement “my father was a good man” and “I love my mother”

• disagree with statement “as a child I was able to go to my parents with my problems”

• disagree with statement “my home was always happy”

humanistic view of creativity

• unconditional positive regard in childhood is what leads to highly creative people

  • = few pressures to conform or inhibit oneself

  • allows child to be themselves and be spontaneous, uninhibited, creative, and focused on their personal fulfillment

humanistic vs adversity view

• reconciling

• each idea may be useful at different times—sometimes it’s useful to be challenged (by adversity), but other times it’s good to be comforted/accepted

• perhaps there is an optimal level of challenge vs. comfort that leads to highly creative individuals

family process

one category of family influences on creativity

a parental style with discipline, but not overly strict, most likely led to creativity in children

may promote exploration, play, and experimentation, which can contribute to creative thinking and problem-solving

family structure

one category of family influences on creativity

main variables: family size and birth order

Runco & Bahleda (1987) gave children (gifted and non-gifted) divergent thinking tests and correlated their score with various family structure data

Runco and Bahleda (1987) results

• birth order and number of siblings is correlated with divergent thinking scores

  • highest divergent thinking scores = only children

  • next highest divergent thinking scores = eldest children

• number of siblings: more siblings = higher scores than no siblings

  • larger families (more siblings) allows more frequent opportunities for play, or there is less parental supervision; may need to use their imaginative skills to stay entertained

• almost opposite to what’s found with general IQ and GPA—children from smaller families tend to do better on tests of general intelligence

Sulloway (1996)

meta-analysis looking at birth-order effects

• first born children: increased need for achievement in conventional areas like academics, sports, social

• second born children: fill a different niche in the family ; easiest way to be unique and avoid competition with older siblings is to fill the unconventional or rebellious niche in the family

  • = increased likelihood of creative behavior

Sulloway (1996) conclusions

more siblings = more creative

birth-order results are less clear — some research suggests that only and eldest children are most creative; other research suggests that second-born children may be more creative thinkers

socioeconomic factors of creativity

• affects kinds of experiences and resources available to child

• parental education is also highly correlated with ___

• most researchers feel that diverse experience likely contributes to the development of creativity by contributing to the flexibility of thought associated with creative talent

Runco and Albert (2005)

subjects: exceptionally gifted boys and their parents

measured boys’ creativity (divergent thinking tasks, CPI, BIC)

gave parents the CPI

Runco and Albert (2005) results

independent thought is the first parental personality trait associated with child’s creativity

qualities of independent thought:

• interested in achievement through autonomy and independence

• tolerant

• flexible and adaptable in thinking and social behavior

masculinity/femininity are the second parental personality trait associated with child’s creativity

• creativity associated with scores on feminine side of scale, reflecting parents’ interest in / capacity for patience and interpersonal sensitivity

Runco and Albert (1988)

• connection between parental independence and creativity in children

• parental appreciation for independence/autonomy was associated with…

  • children’s ideas regarding independence

  • creative (divergent thinking) skills of their children (parents who allow children more independence tend to have children who think creatively)

implicit theories of creativity

ideas and expectations that are not specifically articulated, shared, or tested

parents’ and teachers’ theories of creativity affect how they respond to children and what opportunities they may provide to them (ex: art bias)

Runco (1989)

• parents completed Adjective Check List ; top 25 from teachers vs top 25 from parents

• 7/25 adjectives were shared by parents and teachers: artistic, curious, imaginative, independent, inventive, original, having wide interests

• parents’ and teachers’ ratings of children’s creativity were different

  • parents had different ratings of their childrens’ creativity than did teachers

    • parents personal connection to child, teachers less likely to observe range of child’s interest, etc.

Runco, Johnson, and Baer (1993)

• similar to Runco (1989), but looked at traits contradictive of creativity

• results:

  • 67% agreement between parents/teachers for traits indicative of creativity, less so for contradictive traits

• differences between parents and teachers

  • parents most concerned with personal/intellectual tendencies ( being enterprising, impulsive, industrious, progressive, resourceful, self-confident)

  • teachers most concerned with social traits (cheerful, easy going, emotional, friendly, spontaneous)

• in genera, traits that parents and teachers attribute to creative children were viewed as more socially desirable than traits not associated with creativity

Runco and Albert (1986)

• test of parental creativity

• gave divergent thinking tests to gifted adolescents and their parents

• results:

  • significant correlation (.4-.5) between creativity scores of adolescents and their parents

  • possible explanations for correlation:

    • modeling: children imitate the divergent thinking of their parents

    • valuation: parents who value original thinking may be more likely to reinforce those behaviors in their children

Noble, Runco, and Ozkaragoz (1993)

significant correlation between creativity of adolescent sons and their parents

strongest correlation was between father/son

no significant correlation between creativity of fathers and mothers (contrary to popular idea of assortive mating)