Running head: VERBAL AND VISUAL SKILLS IN CREATIVE ......relationships within verbal and visual...

Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 1

Running head: VERBAL AND VISUAL SKILLS IN CREATIVE THINKING

Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking: A Test of the Independence Hypothesis

Lilibeth Giraldo

University of Florida

Dr. Ira Fischler, Chair

Lise Abrams, Committee Member

Andreas Keil, Committee Member

IRB approval #: 2009-U-1246


Abstract

This research study was designed to examine the relationship between both visual and verbal

divergent thinking and creative performance. The sample consisted of 123 undergraduates from

the University of Florida. Verbal and visual divergent thinking were measured by using the

Alternative Meanings Test and the Alternative Uses Test, respectively. Creative performance

was measured with the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA) and two self-report

questionnaires: the Creative Behavior Inventory and the Creative Domain Questionnaire. Results

analyzed through Pearson product-moment correlation indicated a number of significant

relationships within verbal and visual tasks and creativity, as well as between them. A pattern of

weak correlations across visual and verbal dimensions suggests that an independent relationship

exists between the two dimensions in relation to divergent thinking. Unexpectedly, the analysis

shows that the Alternative Uses Tests is more related to the verbal component of the ATTA than

the visual. The findings of this study reaffirm that creativity is a complex mental function and is

contingent upon many psychological variables.


Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking: A Test of the Independence Hypothesis

It is generally accepted that the world is quickly becoming technologically sophisticated

as computer science modernizes the way we live. But while technology has improved lives in

some ways, it has also made life more difficult in other ways. For example, even though

computers make it easy to store and share data, they also require us to acquire computer skills.

Along with modern technology’s increased opportunities comes increased demand.

With such increasing complexity in global communications, the ability to adapt through

creative thinking is more important now than ever before. Seen in this context, creativity grants

flexibility and effectiveness to those who possess it. Runco (2004) states, “the flexibility of

creative persons is what gives them the capacity to cope with the advances, opportunities,

technologies, and changes that are a part of our current day-to-day lives” (p.658). Creativity may

be considered a legacy of the evolutionary process, which has historically allowed for the rapid

adaption to changing environments.

The measurement of individual creative ability is arguably the most criticized area

requiring agreement in the creative thinking literature, and yet it is the area in which establishing

such agreement is most difficult (Kilgour, 2006). One of the primary difficulties noted in the

literature is “the lack of an instrument that can accurately measure, with any degree of internal

validity, what is commonly regarded to be a complex construct” (Kilgour, 2006, p. 80).

Although creativity may be a subjective construct that we cannot evaluate independently

of the domain, we may be able to objectively measure a person's creative thinking


processes even though some may argue that this process itself is still poorly understood

despite considerable debate on the subject (Kilgour, 2006, p.79).

This study’s aims are twofold: (1.) to evaluate performance on several cognitive tasks as

means of measuring processes said be involved in creative activities using divergent thinking;

and (2.) to explore the relationship between these performances and three measures of creative

achievement – one, a popular behavioral test of creativity created by Torrance; and two

questionnaires pertaining to a person’s beliefs and knowledge about his creative abilities.

Because of the fundamental importance of the distinction between visual-spatial skills

and verbal-linguistic skills in cognitive psychology, an important focus of the present study will

be to assess whether these two creative domains are independent of one another or if the two

domains cross over. In addition to assessing divergent flexibility in the verbal and visual-spatial

domains, another critical element of this process is the use of neuropsychological tests that will

assess key manifestations of uniqueness and talent which are thought to be important in creative

activities as well as visual-spatial, verbal, and imagery skills. The central hypothesis is that the

contribution of verbal and visual abilities to creative thinking and achievement are significantly

independent.

Literature Review

Creativity is one of the most difficult mental functions to study due to our limited

understanding of the term creative. While there is no consensus for a concrete definition of the

word creativity, it has traditionally been considered a multifaceted phenomenon which results in

the productions of new and useful ideas, rather than as a unitary, individual component of

cognition, personality, or perception (Kilgour, 2006; Noppe & Gallagher, 1977). One reason

creativity is multifaceted is that “several factors contribute to its development and expression”

(Basadur, Taggar & Pringle, 1999, p.77). Runco (1993) classified these factors (cognitive,


motivational, and attitudinal) as personal, social, and environmental (Basadur, Taggarm &

Pringle, 1999). Bechtereva and Nagornova (2007) define creativity as “the ability of an

individual to generate new, original ideas, to deviate in thinking from stereotypes and traditional

patterns, and to solve problem situations quickly” (p.11).

Overall, creativity can be defined as the ability to comprehend, develop and articulate

novel relationships in a systematic fashion. Some studies argue that creativity is the most

important and valued aspect of the human mind since it is responsible for the emergence of

human intellectual accomplishments. Some have even claimed that it is the creative potential an

individual possesses that distinguishes humans from non-humans (Sethy, 2009).

Psychologist Graham Wallas introduced one of the earliest models of the creative

process. In his work Art of Thought, Wallas (1926) as well as Helmholtz (1826) proposed that

creative thinking proceeds through four phases. These phases include: preparation (the

exploration of problem’s dimensions), incubation (the internalization of the process into the

unconscious mind), illumination (the movement of the creative idea from preconscious into

conscious awareness), and verification (application of the idea) (Shuell, 1990).

The preparation phase allows the individual to obtain the skills needed to perform

creatively. Creative people need ideas before they can participate in the act of creative

production and they need to be able to understand the problems, which are used to generate

novel ideas. Thus, as they move into the incubation phase, creative individuals proceed to

consciously, or unconsciously, construct new ideas in an attempt to recognize and comprehend

unique associations. Next, the illumination phase is characterized by "Eureka" experiences in

which a clear answer to a complex problem seems to come to mind in a sudden and seemingly

random fashion. And finally, in an attempt to test their hypothesis, creative individuals, like


researchers, apply their ideas to real-world settings—often in the form of experiments—in the

verification phase (Heilman, Nadeau & Beversdorf, 2003).

The concepts of incubation and illumination have generated much disagreement

(Runco & Pritzker, 1999). For instance, Weisberg (1986) argued that “creativity does not

typically require great leaps, and the procedures that lead to many great encounters and

discoveries might not be a series of subconscious steps, but rather conscious incubation”

(Heilman, Nadeau & Beversdorf, 2003; Welling, 2007).

A fundamental process in creativity (Williams, 2000), divergent thinking can be defined

in many ways. Runco (1986) provides an expansive one: “Divergent thinking ability is not

equivalent to creative ability, but it is indicative of the potential for creative performance” (p.

346). This perspective contends that divergent thinking is related to creativity and constitutes an

important aspect of individual creativity. Williams (2000) states that “effective creative problem

solving requires the generation of varied and diverging potential solutions, and divergent

thinking helps individuals identify interesting problems and creative ways to implement

solutions” (p. 187). As Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) noted, divergent thinking “has

long been considered the cognitive key to creativity and has continued to be a major

consideration in creativity research” (p. 298). Divergent thinking, which is a thought process

used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, is associated with

creativity. Divergent thinking distinguishes creative problem solving from other kinds of

problem solving in two ways: novel and useful ideas. The individual cognitive processes

underlying originality and appropriateness were first introduced by Guilford in the 1960's under

the terms divergent and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1966). But despite the variety of

perspectives on the matter, most researchers are convinced that creativity and divergent thinking

have an indissoluble connection (Williams, 2000).


Cognitive Research on Creativity

Creativity is an essential activity of human information processing. Cognitive

psychologists generally agree that it includes two defining features: “The ability to produce work

that is both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning

task constraints)” (Dietrich, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999, p. 3). Research shows that novelty

is the most important aspect by which an individual’s act of creativity can be judged (Runco,

2004). Research on problem solving, creative perception and knowledge attainment has replaced

the understanding that the creative action is a mystical or even mysterious occurrence (Dietrich,

2004; Simonton, 2009). The cognitive research on creativity is quite diverse. Researchers have

identified a number of cognitive processes that may relate to creativity (Woodman, Sawyer &

Griffin, 1993). Memory, attention, and knowledge include a few of the basic cognitive abilities

that have been considered. The use of attention seems to be one of the most important abilities

in creative reasoning. Wallach (1970), for example, suggested that “‘wide’ attention deployment

facilitates the discovery of remote and original ideas” (Runco, 2004, p. 667). Conversely, Smith,

Michael, and Hocevar (1990) proposed that “evaluation and pressure often lead directly to

anxiety and alienated attention, and that this challenges creative thinking because attention is

focused on a stressor rather than to the task or problem at hand” (Runco, 2004, p. 667).

Also playing a role in creative reasoning is the concept of Knowledge. For instance,

“declarative and factual knowledge may supply the individual with choices when he or she is

problem solving, but at the same time, they can in some cases constrain creative reasoning if the

individual looks only to acquire knowledge rather than generate original concepts and

associations” (Runco, 2006). For example, Torrance, Glover, Ronning and Reynolds (1989)

explained that having a large knowledge base about a particular focus (i.e. counseling therapy)


reduces the specialist’s (i.e. therapist) openness to new information and may serve to constrain

the specialist from acquiring new methods of counseling.

The second component of knowledge in creative cognition involves strategies which

depend on practical knowledge and which are often used to solve essential problems. They are

among the most teachable features of thinking artistically (Runco, 2004). In addition, field

dependence shows a strong link to creativity. People with high field independence are able to

examine the pertinent facets of a given situation without having their attention diverted by the

less relevant facets, whereas field-dependent individuals have a hard time separating less

important aspects from important ones (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).

Guilford, in his work on the structure of intelligence, has identified the cognitive

processes of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration as essential to divergent production.

Guilford (1983) termed these abilities, which are pertinent to creative talent, as transformation

abilities. These abilities allow the individual to alter or modify what one knows into new patterns

or configurations. Many researchers including Torrance have used Guilford’s transformation

abilities. Most of Guilford's research is centered on recognizing cognitive processes that make up

the two categories of abilities—divergent thinking and transformation—and on developing tests

for these abilities (Russ, 1993).

“Divergent production has long been considered the key cognitive factor to creativity and

has continued to be a major consideration in creativity research” (Williams, 2000, p. 187). Since

Guilford's research into the concept of divergent thinking (1968), most researchers have

recognized the importance of recombination of ideas as fundamental to the process of creative

thinking.


Measurements of Divergent Thinking

According to Runco (1986), creative cognition can often be studied through divergent

thinking tests. Divergent production asks from an individual as many suitable responses as

possible, whereas convergent thinking demands a single accurate response. Some tests are open-

ended assessments which are scored according to their abundance or lack of the following

features: fluency (the number of concepts or answers given), originality (the novelty and

distinctiveness of the concepts or answers given), and flexibility (the variability or assortment of

the concepts or answers given). These tests should be viewed merely as estimates of the potential

for creative thinking; however, their usefulness as predictors remains controversial (Runco,

1986).

The concept of divergent thinking is characterized in different ways by different scientific

researchers. For instance, Guilford (1966) and Torrance relate the expression divergent thinking

to fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality. Wallach and Kogan’s (1965) theory, similar

to the work of Guilford, relates divergent thinking and creativity test scores to two dimensions:

fluency and originality (Hocevar, 1980). Seddon (1983) explains that measures of originality and

flexibility have been criticized because they are typically confounded with fluency (e.g., Clark &

Mirels, 1970). In addition, divergent thinking tests have been widely criticized as measures of

creativity. Wallach and Kogan (1965) argue that the validity of these tests is remarkably

influenced by the conditions under which they are performed. Sternberg (1985) also refused to

use divergent thinking tests as a measure of creativity because he felt that “such tests capture, at

best, only the most trivial aspects of creativity” (p.618). But researchers are still at the forefront

of studying creativity, so studying trivial aspects is what it takes to move forward from

generalizations to more discriminative aspects of creativity.


The relationship between creative reasoning and intelligence has also been controversial.

Kogan (1983) explains that “research has supported the concept that creative abilities are

separate abilities from what we define as intelligence” (Russ, 1993, p.5). Most studies find low

to moderate positive correlations between creativity tests and intelligence tests (Hocevar, 1980;

Runco, 2004). Guilford (1962, 1966, 1968) suggested a three-dimensional model called the

Structure of Intellect, built upon his years of research in the fields of intelligence, originality, and

performance measurement.

Guilford's dimensions are (1.) contents, or types of information that can be differentiated

(e.g., graphical, auditory, figurative, semantic, behavioral); (2.) operations, or the different kinds

of intellectual processes that can take place (e.g., evaluation, convergent production, divergent

production, memory, cognitive reasoning); and (3.) products, those particular intellectual

productions of processing (e.g., components, classes, relationships, transformations,

associations) (Wetherell, 1996). Guilford (1968) also suggests that “this comprehensive three-

dimensional model has been developed to put rationality into the picture” (p.618). Guilford

(1983) wanted to produce assessments for each combination of the possibilities among these

three dimensions, thinking it reasonable that a person could be high on some of these abilities

while being low on others. The model has been described as a “cubical affair, its three

dimensions illustrating ways in which the abilities differ from one another” (Guilford, 1968,

p.620). He argued that this taxonomic model could even lead to the discovery of many abilities

not suspected before (Guilford, 1968).

Guilford, Fruchter, and Kelly (1959) explain that as the number of primary abilities

discovered increased, it became important to find some unifying principles that would make

comprehension of the total list easier. In regards to the first principle of the structure of intellect,

primary abilities differ according to the type of material or content dealt with by the individual.


Research shows that intelligence is comprised of verbal and nonverbal factors. Guilford,

Fruchter, and Kelly (1959) also found that the nonverbal classification subdivides into two

classes of abilities. “There are abilities to deal with “figural” material (concrete, perceived forms,

and properties) and there are abilities to deal with “symbolic” material (composed of letters, and

numbers)” (p. 2927). In the verbal classification are abilities for dealing with ideas or

associations. The second major principle of classification of the primary intellectual abilities is in

terms of content; factors differ with the kinds of operations performed on the material. In regards

to the third principle of the structure of intellect, primary intellectual abilities is in terms of the

products and outcomes achieved by the different operations applied to the different kinds of

contents (Guilford, Fruchter, and Kelly, 1959, p. 2928). Studies show that Guilford developed

this taxonomic model as a representation of intellectual functioning (Edwards, 1969).

Cross (1974) suggested that “present models of education overemphasize the narrow

band of human abilities that enable people to perform academic tasks” (O’Sullivan & Guilford,

1975, p.255). Preparing individuals to work with data, work with facts, and work with people

was suggested in Cross’s own three-dimensional model. E.L. Thorndike (1920) proposed that

human intellect is composed of three aspects: abstract, mechanical, and social intelligence

(O’Sullivan & Guilford, 1975). However, current studies show that “Thorndike’s “social

intelligence” and Cross’s “work with people” are too broad to be of practical value in naming the

domain of interest” (O’Sullivan & Guilford, 1975, p.255). Guilford’s (1967) Structure of

Intellect model is one of the few mainstream theories of human intelligence that includes social

intelligence abilities (O’Sullivan & Guilford, 1975).

Rhodes (1961, 1987) suggested an alliterative method that separates creative abilities

into the following aspects: person, process, press, and product. “The person category includes

research on personal characteristics, for example personality, which often includes fundamental


motivation as a core characteristic of creative individuals” (Runco, 2004, p. 661). Process

research is more behavioral and less subjective. Csikszentmihalyi (2003) presented a “systems

theory in which creative ideas originate with an individual and may eventually have an impact on

the more general domain” (Runco, 2004, p. 661). The literature on creativity refers to the

concept of press to describe pressures on the creative process or on the creativity of individuals

(Runco, 2004; Murray, 1939). Rhodes (1987) stated that “press refers to the relationship of

human beings and their environment” (Runco, 2004, p. 220). The product aspect of creativity

focuses on results and those things that are produced by the creative process. This approach is

supported by the productivity of Piaget and Picasso. However, the problem with this approach is

that it often only informs individuals about productivity, neglecting creativity. Research also

showed that it can be misleading given that what it takes to be productive may differ from what it

takes to be creative (Runco, 2004, p. 663).

Creativity Tests

The accepted definition of creativity is the production of something novel and practical;

this is what is being reflected in creativity tests (Klausen, 2010). To think creatively entails

divergent production (producing many novel ideas) followed by convergent production

(combining those ideas into a single correct product). In order to achieve creativity, individuals

need to be able to view things in new ways or from a different standpoint. They also need to be

able to produce new alternatives to many situations. Creative thinking tests measure not only the

number of new possibilities that people produce but also the novelty of those possibilities. The

ability to produce new possibilities or to see things distinctively is not due to chance; it is

associated to other, more central abilities of thinking, such as flexibility and tolerance of

ambiguity or unpredictability (Franken, 1998).


The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), developed by E. Paul Torrance, is the

most commonly used test of creativity and is the most referenced of all creativity tests (Kim,

2006). Repeated longitudinal studies have found reliable evidence of associations between real-

life creative achievement and test behavior (Kim, 2006; Metzl, 2009).

The Torrance Tests contain two separate dimensions, Verbal and Figural, and measure

the divergent thinking tasks of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Kim, 2006;

Landry, 1974). Research suggests that Torrance’s main emphasis was in understanding and

developing abilities that help individuals express their creativity (Kim, 2006). The tests were not

designed to only measure creativity, but instead to serve as tools for its development. Torrance

(1966, 1967) suggested the following uses for the tests: “1) to understand the human mind and its

function, 2) to discover effective bases for individualizing instruction, 3) to provide clues for

psychotherapeutic programs, and 4) to evaluate the effects of educational programs and teaching

curriculums” (Kim, 2006, p. 4).

Torrance decided that a shortened version of the TTCT could be beneficial, particularly

when assessing creativity in adults, since giving both the Verbal and Figural forms of the TCCT

often requires considerable testing time. As a result, Torrance, Wu, and Ando created the

Demonstration Form of the Torrance Test (D-TTCT) in 1980. The success of a shortened form

when working with adults led to the development of the currently used Abbreviated Torrance

Test for Adults (ATTA). The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults consists of three activities,

one verbal and two visual (Goff & Torrance, 2002).

Activity #1: Asks the participant to suppose that he or she could walk on air or fly, and

then to identify the troubles he or she might encounter.

Activity #2: Presents two incomplete figures and asks the participant to draw a picture

with these figures and attempt to make the pictures as unusual as possible.


Activity #3: Presents a group of triangles and asks the participant to see how many

pictures or objects they can draw using the triangles.

The ATTA assessment consists of four norm-referenced abilities and fifteen criterion-referenced

creativity indicators. The four norm-referenced measures include fluency, originality,

elaboration, and flexibility. The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults Manuel (2002) defines the

measures as follow: Fluency is the ability to generate many ideas which are appropriate to the

task instruction. A creative individual typically shows the ability to produce several or alternative

answers and ideas, both verbally and visually. Originality is the ability to generate novel ideas. A

creative individual tends to generate new ideas rather than common ones. Elaboration is the

ability to enhance ideas with details. A creative individual tends to offer such enhancement

rather than being limited to the central idea. And flexibility is the ability to process information

or items in different ways given the same stimulus. A creative individual uses a flexible approach

when logical approaches fail to produce reasonable outcomes (Goff & Torrance, 2002, p. 26).

The criterion-referenced creativity indicators are identified as either verbal responses or figural

responses. Verbal responses include richness and colorfulness of imagery, emotion/feelings,

future orientation, humor (conceptual incongruity), and provocative questions. Figural Responses

include openness (resistance to premature closure), Unusual Visualization, Different Perspective,

Movement and/or Sound, Richness and/or Colorfulness of Imagery, Abstractness of Titles,

Context: Environment for Object, Articulateness in Telling Story, Combination/Synthesis of

Two or More Figures, Internal Visual Perspective, Expressions of Feelings and Emotions, and

Fantasy (Goff & Torrance, 2002).

Torrance’s research into creativity as a measure of intelligence echoes Guilford’s claim

that “IQ” tests alone cannot measure real intelligence (Kaufman, Kozbelt, Bromley & Miller,

2008). “IQ tests do not typically assess divergent thinking-- they measure learned knowledge and


the ability to store information.” (Kim, 2006). Torrance encouraged the use of individual scale

scores and warned that using a single score can be misleading (Goff & Torrance, 2002; Kim,

2006). Individual scale scores allow not only for the evaluation of each ability (fluency,

originality, elaboration, and flexibility) independently, but also allows for direct comparisons

across all four measures, which ultimately cannot be achieved using a single score (Goff &

Torrance, 2002).

Tests of verbal and visual divergent thought.

Many words in English do in fact have numerous meanings. For instance, the word light

can mean little physical weight or density (e.g., light load) or having a relatively small amount of

coloring agent (e.g., light blue). Other words may have only one meaning. The Alternative

Meanings Test is used as our measure of verbal divergent thinking. Originally developed by

neuropsychologist Elizabeth Warrington, and called the Homophone Meaning Generation Test

(HMGT), this test seeks to measure verbal flexibility and fluency, and in particular, to disengage

from one meaning to find others, divergent meanings of words. The test asks the participants to

generate different meanings for common words. The generation of different and various

meanings for these common words require switching among dissimilar verbal concepts. In this

present study, 16 words with multiple meanings are spoken to participants, and they generate as

many meaning, in sentence contexts, as they can for each word. Some are homophones with

different spellings (e.g., flu, flew...), others are homographic (bat-animal, bat-sport...). The score

is the total number of correct meanings produced. Research has found that patients with anterior

lesions performed worse than those with posterior lesions (although no significant laterality

effects appeared, as might have been expected from the notion that the left hemisphere is

commonly dominant for language abilities). These findings are also consistent with findings


from fluency tests in showing that patients with frontal lesions have deficits in cognitive

flexibility and generation of concepts (Lezak, 1995).

Suedeld and Coren (1992) argue that since Guilford’s presidential address in the 1950s,

measures of divergent thinking have been assumed to be measures of creativity. Alternate Uses

Tests, is one of the most popular of these tests, allowing subjects to find unique uses for common

objects. The ability to generate many different solutions for a single problem is an important

aspect of creative thinking. Thus, the objective of the Alternative Uses task is to generate many

possible uses for familiar objects that are different from the common use. These factors support

the use of the Alternate Uses Test as a measure of visual divergent thought.

Method

Participants

The present research involves analysis of existing data that was collected as part of an

ongoing University of Florida (UF) project on creativity and cognition, in which I participated in

during data collection, processing and scoring, during 2010. Participants were recruited from

general psychology courses at UF. All participants followed an exclusion criteria before they

were recruited stating that they never had any head injury that lead to unconsciousness nor had

any neurological or psychiatric disorders. General Psychology students received eight credits

(four hours) toward a class research requirement for participation. Those who decided not to

participate received two credits toward their research requirement. The experiment was approved

by the University Institutional Review Board prior to the start of data collection. There were

approximately 123 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Florida. Of the

participants, 39 (36.4%) were male and 68 (63.6%) were female. Of the students, 13 (12.15%)

were African-American, 19 (17.8%) were Hispanic/Latino (a), 1 (0.93%) was Native-American,

4 (3.7%) were Asian-American, 63 (58.9%) were European-American, 4 (3.7%) were


Multiracial, and 3 (2.8%) identified as “other”. The average age was 18.28 years (SD = 1.19).

The average years of education were 13.32 years.

Procedure

Participants 18 years of age and older registered for participation through SONA, which

is a secure, online recruitment system. On arrival to the lab, participants were told that the

purpose of the research study was to explore the relationship between a person’s beliefs and

knowledge about their level of creativity, and their performance on a series of cognitive tasks

intended to measure processes said to be involved in creative abilities. Participation in this study

was completely voluntary. There was no penalty for not participating.

Participants underwent a series of neuropsychological tests which consisted of simple

cognitive tasks ranging in duration from a minute to about fifteen minutes each. Some of the

tests are administered with pencil and paper, while others are computerized. The order of the

tests was fixed for all participants. Tasks included drawing simple designs, reading words,

naming the color that words are printed in, sorting cards according to different attributes, listing

different uses of objects, and solving a number of simple visual and verbal problems. The last

part of the study involved answering questions about how each individual perceives some of his

or her own problem solving and cognitive abilities. Some tests assess disengagement, which

requires that a person first break away from prior solutions, whereas other tests allow individuals

to develop alternative solutions (divergent and associative thinking) and then learn which

solution works best (convergent thinking).

Measures

The kinds of disengagement tasks in the battery of tests included those intended to assess

“stimulus dependence” (visual-spatial and verbal) and shifting set. Other tasks explored

alternative approaches, including divergent reasoning (verbal and visual-spatial), convergent


reasoning (verbal and visual-spatial) and insight (conscious versus subconscious). The divergent

reasoning task chosen to measure visual-spatial processes in the present study is the Alternative

Use of Objects Task (Guilford). In this test, the subjects were given three different objects and

asked to name as many things as they could possibly associate with that object in a two-minute

span. The subjects were told that the score was to be based on the number of uses.

The task chosen to measure divergent verbal processes is the Alternative Meanings test.

In this test, the experimenter read each of 16 words out loud to the participant. The words varied

on how many different meanings or senses the participant can refer to. For example, yard can be

a measure, or an area of land, and so forth. Some of the meanings may have different spellings,

but this should not be of any influence. The participant is given no more than two minutes for

each word.

Production of creative works was assessed using the Revised Torrance Test of Creativity.

The standard Abbreviated Torrance Test consists of three activities, one verbal and two visual.

During the verbal activity the subject was given a prompt and was instructed to write a story with

a given page limit. The second activity consisted of giving the subject a paper on which was two

incomplete drawings. The subjects were then asked not only to create meaningful drawings that

incorporate these incomplete figures but also to title their drawings. There was no time limit. The

third activity consisted of a group of triangles where participants were asked to see how many

pictures or objects they could draw using those triangles.

Participants also filled out several self-report questionnaires that explored various aspects

of their own creative activities, skills and self-assessments. These included the Creative

Processes Questionnaire, the Creative Behavior Inventory, the Creative Domain Questionnaire,

the Openness to Experience Questionnaire and the Ten Item Personality Inventory. I chose two


of these for inclusion in my study, since they lent themselves readily to separation of verbal and

visual domains.

Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI): Based on the assumption that “the best predictor of

future creative behavior may be past creative behavior”, several investigators have developed

activity and self-report biographical inventories such as the CBI. The CBI is a self-reported

checklist of creative behaviors and/or activities that the respondent has previously engaged or

participated in. Studies have made clarifications in regards to the widespread use of activity

checklists and biographical inventories. For instance, self-reported activities are discussed in

terms of creative personality because this particular type of product is usually not directly

observed or measured thus, they can be interpreted as creative products (Kaufman & Sternberg,

2010). The CBI is presented in Appendix A.

Creative Domain Questionnaire (CDQ): On a scale from 1 to 7, participants were asked

to rate themselves in each domain in life on the bases of how much they think they are creative

in that domain. For the 56 domains, participants rated their creativity as Not at all creative (1),

Not very creative (2), A little creative (3), Somewhat creative (4), Very creative (5), and

Extremely creative (6). They were also given the opportunity to mark Not applicable, which was

scored as missing data. Participants used their own definitions or concepts of creativity. The

purpose of this study was to investigate the factor structure of creative general thematic areas

using a much larger scale –examining 56 domains (Kaufman, Cole & Baer, 2009). The CDQ is

presented in Appendix B.

The study was conducted in two sessions, the first ranging from 90 minutes to two hours

in length, and the second, ranging from an hour to 90 minutes. The neuropsychological and

performance tests were performed in the first session, while the questionnaires were completed

in the second session.


Results

The main analyses of the study were a series of Pearson product-moment correlations,

intended to explore the relationship between verbal and visual skills when comparing divergent

thinking and creative performance. These analyses included measures from (a) the several,

specific neuropsychological tasks, namely Alternative Meanings (verbal) and Alternative Uses

(visual), (b) verbal and visual component scores from a traditional test of creative ability,

namely the Abbreviated Torrance Test, and (c) responses to the self-report questionnaires on

creative achievement and ability, namely the Creative Behavior Inventory and the Creative

Domain Questionnaire, that focus on verbal and on visual kinds of creative activities.

Derivation of Measures.

Several of the tests used required a series of analytical steps, or ratings, to obtain the

scores to be presented. The following tests required a series of analytical steps or ratings:

Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA) - Regarding both verbal and visual

components of the ATTA, two independent raters evaluated both the stories (Activity 1) and the

drawings (Activities 2 and 3, see above). Drawings were evaluated on originality, from 1 (not

original) to 5 (highly original), and on practicality, from 1 (not practical) to 5 (very practical).

Stories were also evaluated on originality, from 1 (not original) to 5 (highly original), and on

formal style of the story, from 1 (poor style) to 5 (high style).

According to the ATTA manual, scores are calculated in terms of raw scores and various

derived scores. Quantitative guidelines for obtaining ratings for “subskills” of fluency,

originality, elaboration, and flexibility are described in the manual. As the verbal composite, task

#1 calculated raw scores for both fluency and originality. Task # 2, as the first of two visual

components, determined raw scores for fluency, originality, and elaboration. And finally, as the


second visual component, task # 3 calculated raw scores for all four subskills. Scores for fluency,

flexibility, elaboration, and originality are summed separately across all figural and verbal

subtests, thus suggesting similarity in the creative process across a variety of different activities.

In the standard scoring of the ATTA, these rating are summed across all three tasks to obtain

total scores for the four subskills. In the present analysis, the verbal component was separate

from the two visual tasks. For the verbal task (Activity 1), scores for fluency and originality were

summed to obtain the ATTA-verbal score. Subscores on all components on Activities 2 and 3

were summed to obtain the ATTA-visual score. This was done for each participant. (At the time

of analysis, these data were available for only the first 60 participants, so correlations involving

ATTA scores were limited to this sample size).

Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task was scored based on two components: fluency and

originality. Fluency scores were obtained by adding up the total number of distinct responses

made by each participant in three tasks (Brick, Hanger, and Pencil). Calculation of originality

was done by comparing the total number of each individual response from all of the participants

with the total number of participants in the study. An originality index for each response was

calculated with the following formula: 1- (proportion of participants giving that response), so the

rarer the response, the higher the originality index. (Not surprisingly, the modal number of

participants giving a particular response was 1). For example, 107 of 123 participants gave to

build something as a use of “brick”, so the index was 1- (107/123), or 0.13. In contrast, only one

gave to entomb a Barbie doll, so the index was 0.99. For each participant, the average originality

score was obtained for each of the three objects then averaged to obtain their overall originality

score for this task.

In order to obtain the Alternative Meanings test scores, the sum of each correct (new)

meaning was obtained for each participant. Two scorers obtained this measure independently,


and the average score when discrepancies arose was used as the measure of verbal divergent

thinking.

Scores from the Creative Domain Questionnaire and the Creative Behavior

Inventory were derived by distinguishing which categories dealt with verbal processes from

those which were dealt with visual processes, eliminating the remaining categories (either

verbal-and-visual, or neither). In order to do so, four raters were given a copy of each of the

questionnaires and asked to identify which categories were verbal processes and which were

visual. Only those items for which three out of the four raters agreed upon were used to derive

raw scores. This resulted in fewer than 43 percent of the overall items going into the verbal and

visual set. Appendices A and B illustrate both questionnaires. Items distinctive in verbal

processes are in bold while those distinctive in visual are italicized.

Descriptive statistics for the various measures

Mean performance score and standard deviations on the neuropsychological tests for all

subjects are displayed in Table 2. For present purposes, the most important aspect of these

statistics is that for each, there is a reasonable amount of variation, with a standard deviation

above the mean of at least 10% (for the Guilford Originality) to nearly 50% (for ATTA-verbal).

Correlations among the various measures

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for each pair of measures, using the

SPSS package. Table 4 shows these correlations and their significance levels within the verbal

domain, within the visual domain and across domains. We will first focus on the degree of

independence for the verbal versus visual dimension within each type of measure, then on the

extent to which the verbal and visual divergent thinking tests are predictive of the behavioral

(ATTA) and self-report (CBI and CDQ) measures of creative performance.


To begin with, the measure of verbal divergent thinking (Alternative Meanings, first row

in Table 4) was wholly independent of that for visual divergent thinking as predicted (Alternative

Uses: Guilford Fluency and Originality, columns 2 and 3), Pearson’s r = -.025 and .089, n.s.,

respectively. Somewhat surprisingly, there was a strong correlation between the fluency and

originality on the Alternative Uses Test (r = +.69, p < 0.01). Although a correlation was

predicted between both fluency and originality, the magnitude of the correlation was surprisingly

high. This suggests that a better method for scoring originality may be necessary. Due to this,

researchers have developed a method to avoid the contamination between fluency and originality

scores. These results are consistent with those of Tarver, Ellsworth, and Rounds (1980) who

found that “figural originality and figural fluency were highly correlated (r = +.79, p <.001), as

were verbal uniqueness and verbal number (r = +.84, p < .001)” (p.16). The verbal and visual

subscales of the ATTA were largely independent, with a non-significant correlation of r = +.24,

p < .06, reflecting a shared variance of only about 5%. Usually the correlation of verbal versus

visual tasks are + .1. This unexpected occurrence can be due to the lack of distinction between

verbal and visual dimensions in the tasks. Assuming face validity, the story is verbal and the

drawing is visual, but the drawings can have some linguistic aspects and the story may involve

visual imagery, so overlapping can occur within dimensions causing a large correlation.

In contrast to this dissociation of verbal and visual components on the behavioral tests,

there were fairly strong correlations between responses for the verbal and visual items for both of

the self-report questionnaires (CBI: r = +.49, p < .001; CDQ: r = +.69, p < .001). Across the

questionnaires, the responses for verbal items were moderately correlated (CBI-verbal and CDQ-

verbal r = +.39, p < .001; CBI-visual and CDQ-visual r = +.30, p < .001).

Overall, the pattern of only weak correlations across visual and verbal dimensions

confirms the hypothesis that an independent or weakly positive relationship exists between


verbal and visual processes in connection to divergent thinking. These results also agree with the

aforementioned 1980 research conducted by Tarver, Ellsworth, and Rounds, which indicated that

the figural measures were not significantly linked to with verbal measures.

We now turn to how well the tests of verbal and visual divergent thinking predicted

behavioral performance on the ATTA and the self-reports of creative activity. As expected, the

verbally-based Alternative Meanings Test was uncorrelated with the ATTA-visual (r = +.03,

n.s.). However, neither was it correlated with the ATTA-verbal scores (r = -.15, n.s.) which was

unexpected. Also surprisingly was the pattern of results for the presumably visual Alternative

Uses test (Guilford fluency and originality), which was significantly correlated not with the

ATTA-visual (r = +.24, p < .10 for fluency, r = +.05, n.s., for originality), but with the ATTA-

verbal (r = +.39, p < .005 for fluency, r = +.29, p < .05, for originality).

Overall, performance on the Alternative Uses test measures was more strongly

correlated with responses on the questionnaires than was performance on the Alternative

Meanings test. Guilford-fluency correlated significantly with both the verbal and visual scales of

the CBI (r = +.31, p < .005 for both), and the verbal and visual scales of the CDQ (r = +.30, p <

.005, and r = +.22, p < .05, respectively). Guilford-originality showed a similar pattern (not

surprisingly, given the high correlation between fluency and originality on this test, as noted

above), CBI verbal r = +.29, p < .005; CBI visual r = +.25, p < .02; CDQ-verbal r = +.27, p <

.005; CDQ-visual r = +.08, n.s. It is interesting that, overall, as with the relation of Guilford’s

test with the ATTA, the strength of association seem somewhat greater for the verbal dimension

than with the visual, although the outcome is not as clear here. As for the verbal Alternative

Meanings test, it was only predictive of scores on the verbal scale of the CBI (r = +.24, p < .02).

Finally, we note the general lack of correlation between the “behavioral” test of creativity

and the self-reports. Of the eight possible comparisons between ATTA-verbal, ATTA-visual, and


the questionnaires, only that between ATTA-verbal and CDQ-verbal reached significance (r =

+.27, p < .05).

Not surprisingly, each questionnaire was strongly correlated with the others. For

example, CDQ-verbal was strongly correlated with CDQ-visual (r = 0.694), moderately

correlated with all other questionnaires, however, weakly correlated with ATTA-visual (r =

0.016).

Discussion

The research study presented here was designed to investigate the role of verbal and

visual processes in divergent thinking as they relate to creative activity. Although divergent

thinking may be difficult to directly observe, it is an essential part of creative processes and is

apparent in students’ creative outcome. In view of the increasing volumes of literature on the

term creativity, an interesting aspect of the present study is that verbal tasks and visual tasks

have only small correlations, not only among verbal-to-verbal and visual-to-visual but also

among verbal-to-visual tasks or skills. Thus, verbal creativity shows itself to be related to verbal

abilities while visual creativity relates not only to visual ability scores but also to verbal

reasoning scores. Research suggests that these findings are “consistent with the notion that visual

creativity is largely domain and task-specific, whereas verbal creativity, is domain-specific [but]

may also be sensitive to processes in the visual domain as well” (Palmiero, Nakatani, Raver,

Belardinelliac, & Leeuwenb, 2010).

The results showed that correlations seemed to vary across the variables being measured.

Correlations are not an all or nothing thing, a modest correlation is telling you that there is some

shared variance. Specifically, Pearson product-moment correlation demonstrated the nearly non-

existent correlation between the Alternative Meanings Test (a distinctly verbal measure) and the

visual component for the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults. Results indicate that the fluency


component of the Alternative Uses Test is significantly correlated with six creative activities:

Originality component of the Alternative Uses Test, the verbal component of the ATTA, the

verbal and visual components of the CBI, and the verbal and visual components of the CDQ.

Meanwhile, the fluency composite did not show any significant connection with creativity in the

Alternative Meanings Test. Results also indicate that the Alternative Meanings Test does not

predict creativity in either questionnaire measuring visual processes. Turner (1978) pointed out

that “people scoring highly on creative stories were not necessarily good performers on the

Stanford Reading Comprehension Test” (Palmiero, Nakatani, Raver, Belardinelliac, &

Leeuwenb, 2010, p. 376).

Unfortunately, correlations seemed to vary across the variables being measured.

However, some of the patterns are sensible thus predicting an independent or weakly positive

relationship existing between the verbal and visual measures within tests (i.e. ATTA, and

between Guilford and Alternative Meanings). Alternative Meanings also showed a predictive

correlation in regards to the verbal scale, and no others. Others suggest both verbal and visual

aspect of creativity are not as independent as predicted; and in one case, measuring Guilford

based on the observed correlations, may depend more on verbal than visual processes. This

implication could be addressed by using a better predictor test of visual divergent thinking, for

instance the use of the Finke Geometric test instead of the Alternative Uses.

Since prior research has incorporated different criteria for measuring creativity and

divergent thinking, it is difficult to compare the results of this study to other studies. “Whereas

there are a number of significant correlations between divergent thinking and real-life creativity

in this and prior studies, the correlations generally do not exceed 0.30” (Hocevar, 1980, p. 37).

By preferring qualitative strategies (open-ended questions) over quantitative ones (structured

questions), future divergent thinking tests may result in an increase in such coefficients.


Harrington's research, which contends that since instructions to be creative improve the

Alternative Uses Test's predictive trustworthiness, it is believed that the predictive validity of

divergent thinking tests overall, would improve if the giving of such instructions became

standard practice (Hocevar, 1980).

In an attempt to reconcile some of the conflicting evidence, this study showed that visual

and verbal creativity are mostly domain-specific processes. On a closer look, patterns of only

weak correlations across verbal and visual dimensions where observed as well as strong

correlations between responses for the visual and verbal items for both self-report questionnaire.

Consequently, one can point out that given such mixed results, the patterns are still capable of

showing an independent relationship between the visual and verbal measures of creativity. In

summary, the findings of this study reaffirm that creativity is a complex mental function and is

contingent upon many psychological variables.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation of this study is its inability to generate findings beyond a strictly collegiate

population that is also disproportionately white as well as female. Also the fact that they were

recruited from a general psychology class makes them more knowledgeable then the average

participant. Thus, they will be more familiar to how a study is run or more willing to try to figure

out the purpose of the study. There is also the limitation of causality. For instance, these data did

not rule out the possibility that a third variable might be influencing the process of creative

production. There are many factors that determine creative abilities across individuals—

occupation, age, experience, achievement and motivation. Additionally, although the stated

hypothesis received at least partial support, it is possible that the correlations might have been

stronger and more consistent had another sample been used, thus extending the study beyond the

homogeneous college student sample. Another limitation of this study is in terms of self


reporting. We face social desirability bias which is the tendency of participants to reply in a

favorable manner. Thus, they will over-report good behavior and under-report bad behavior.

Finally, method variance is another limitation of this study. This limitation suggests that each test

could have been administered differently by each research assistant.

Possible Implications

Perhaps the most significant implication of this study is found in the differences among

raters’ tendency to rate participants’ performances on the neuropsychological tests. This study

has revealed that the relation between divergent thinking and creativity is complex, varying by

the creativity measure used. Based on the results, verbal and visual divergent thinking are not

limited to their domain. Visual abilities did not correlate positively with visual creative

performance as well as verbal abilities with verbal performance. However, results also suggest

that verbal and visual creative performance were not domain-general. This suggests that if

someone is creative in a verbal task they will not necessarily be creative in a visual task and vice

versa. For future studies, I would use the Finke’s Geometric Forms Test, which may be a better

predictor for visual creativity than the Alternative Uses Task. This is because the Alternative

Uses Task seems to have an overlap between verbal and visual dimensions whereas the Finke is

unquestionably visual. As well as using a more varied population, which is not limited in age,

occupation, race and gender may show more correlations. I would also want to run a regression

analysis in order to remove any third variable influencing the correlations. Follow-up research

should be performed in order to investigate other issues that may lead to a fuller understanding of

creativity.


References

Basadur, M., Taggar, S., & Pringle, P. (1999). Improving the measurement of divergent thinking

attitudes in organizations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(2), 75-111.

Bechtereva, N. P., & Nagornova, Z. V. (2007). Changes in EEG coherence during tests for

nonverbal (figurative) creativity. Human Physiology, 33(5), 515-523.

Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,

11(6), 1011-1026.

Edwards, R. (1969). Guildford’s Structure of Intellect Model: It’s Relevance for the Teacher

Preparation Curriculum. Curriculum Theory Network, 3, 47-64.

Franken, R. E. (1998). Human motivation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA US: Thomson Brooks/Cole

Publishing Co.

Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E. E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. V. (2007). Divergent thinking:

Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects.

British Journal of Psychology, 98(4), 611-625.

Goff, K., & Torrance E.P., (2002). Abbreviated Torrance Tests for Adults Manual. Bensenville:

Scholastic Testing Service.

Guilford, J. P. (1983) Transformation abilities or functions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(2),

75-83.

Guilford, J.P. (1966). Measurement and Creativity. Theory into Practice, 5(4), 186-189.

Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence Has Three Facets. Science, 160(3828), 615-620.


Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., & Kelley, H. (1959). Development and applications of tests of

intellectual and special aptitudes. Review of Educational Research, 2926-41.

Heilman, K.M., Nadeau, S.E., & Beverdsdorf, D.O. (2003). Creative innovation: Possible brain

mechanisms. Neurocase, 9(5), 369-379.

Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4(1), 25-40.

Kaufman, J. (Ed.), & Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New

York, NY US: Cambridge University Press.

Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: Structural model for

self-reported creativity ratings. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 119-134.

Kaufman, S., Kozbelt, A., Bromley, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (2008). The role of creativity and

humor in human mate selection. In G. Geher, G. Miller, G. Geher, G. Miller (Eds.),

Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind's reproductive system (pp. 227-

262). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kilgour, M. (2006). Improving the creative process: Analysis of the effects of divergent thinking

techniques and domain specific knowledge on creativity. International Journal of

Business and Society, 7(2), 79-107.

Kim, K. (2006). Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.

Klausen, S. (2010). The notion of creativity revisited: A philosophical perspective on creativity

research. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 347-360.


Landry, R. G. (1974). A comparison of second language learners and monolinguals on divergent

thinking tasks at the elementary school level. Modern Language Journal, 58(1-2), 10-15.

Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York, NY US: Oxford

University Press.

Metzl, E.S. (2009). The role of creative thinking in resilience after hurricane Katrina. Psychology

of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 112-123.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.

Noppe, L. D., & Gallagher, J. M. (1977). A cognitive style approach to creative thought. Journal

of Personality Assessment, 41(1), 85-90.

O’Sullivan, M., & Guilford, J.P. (1975). Six Factors of Behavioral Cognition: Understanding

Other People. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12(4), 255-271.

Palmiero, M., Nakatani, C., Raver, D., Belardinelli, M., & van Leeuwen, C. (2010). Abilities

within and across visual and verbal domains: How specific is their influence on

creativity?. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 369-377.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310

Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the

Basics, ed. SG Isaksen, pp. 216-22. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Runco, M. A. (1986). Flexibility and originality in children's divergent thinking. Journal of

Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(4), 345-352.

Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.


Runco, M. (Ed.), & Pritzker, S. (Ed.). (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity, Vol. 1 A–H and Vol. 2

I–Z with indexes. San Diego, CA US: Academic Press.

Russ, S. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process.

Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Seddon, G. M. (1983). The measurement and properties of divergent thinking ability as a single

compound entity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 393-402.

Sethy, S.S. (2009). Creativity and Cognition. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 45-55.

Shuell, T.J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 531-

547.

Simonton, D. (2009). Creativity. In S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder (Eds.),

Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 261-269). New York, NY US:

Oxford University Press.

Smith, K.L., Michael, W.B., Hocevar, D. (1990). Performance on creativity measures with

examination-taking instructions intended to induce high or low levels of test anxiety.

Creat. Res. J. 3,

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607-627.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T.I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In

Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: University Press.

Suedfeld, P., & Coren, S. (1992). Cognitive correlates of conceptual complexity. Personality and

Individual Differences, 13(11), 1193-1199.


Tarver, S. G., Ellsworth, P. S., & Rounds, D. J. (1980). Figural and verbal creativity in learning

disabled and nondisabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(3), 11-18.

Torrance, E. (Ed.), Glover, J. (Ed.), Ronning, R. (Ed.), & Reynolds, C. (Ed.). (1989). Handbook

of creativity. New York, NY US: Plenum Press.

Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. Carmichael’s Handbook of Child Psychology, 1211-72.

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the

creativity-intelligence distinction.

Welling, H. (2007). Four mental operations in creative cognition: The importance of abstraction.

Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 163-177.

Wetherell, A. (1996). Performance Tests. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104(2), 247-273.

Williams, S. (2000). Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking and

creativity in organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 61.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational

creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.


Author Note

It is my belief that any good research will add to the knowledge base of the field—but in

addition, and probably more importantly, it will leave us with more unanswered questions than

we began with. This will inspire others in the field to continue the research and to add to our

understanding of these concepts to an even greater level. This has been an incredible learning

experience for me and I feel that my research has accomplished these requirements. I would like

to thank Dr. Fischler’s research assistants for their assistance with data collection. I am also

grateful for the comments and suggestions made by Dr. Ira Fischler. The research here is based

on a larger research conducted by Ameer Alwafai, at the University of Florida, which made an

attempt to learn if creativity is altered with aging and if there are possible factors that might

account for the reduction or alteration of creativity.


Table 1

Frequency Distribution of Student Demographic Characteristics

Frequency Percent

Ethnicity_____

African American 13 12.2

Caucasian 63 58.9

Asian 4 3.7

Hispanic 19 17.8

Multiracial 4 3.7

Other 3 2.8

Gender_________

Female 68 63.6

Male 39 36.4


Table 2

Mean Performance Score on Neuropsychological Tests

AtlM Guil_F Guil_O ATTA_VB ATTA_VS

Mean 39.27 7.43 0.71 10.20 29.80

SD 6.88 2.81 0.07 4.87 12.40

Maximum 61 15.7 0.84 25 61

Minimum 28 3.3 0.52 2 3

Note. AltM = Alternative Meanings Test, Guil_F = Alternative Use of Objects (Guilford)

Fluency, Guil_O = Alternative Use of Objects (Guilford) Originality, ATTA_VB = Abbreviated

Torrance Test for Adults Verbal Score, ATTA_VS = Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults

Visual Score.


Table 3

Mean Performance Score on Self-Report Questionnaires Measuring Creative Activities

Verbal Visual Total Rsps

Creative Behavior Inventory 2.03 2.42 2.08

(0.60) (0.85) (0.51)

Creative Domain Questionnaire 4.53 4.33 4.16

(0.78) (1.03) (0.77)

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means. Rsps = Responses.


Table 4. Pearson correlations among the variables used.

Correlations

AtlM GUI_F GUI_O ATTA_vb ATTA_vs CBI-vb CBI-vs CDQ-vb CDQ-vs

AtlM Pearson Correlation 1 -.025 .089 -.145 .033 .236* .046 .112 .098

Sig. (2-tailed) .805 .371 .268 .801 .019 .653 .262 .326

N 109 104 104 60 60 98 98 102 102

GUI_F Pearson Correlation -.025 1 .696** .388** .236 .311** .311** .302** .218*

Sig. (2-tailed) .805 .000 .003 .077 .002 .002 .002 .027

N 104 116 113 57 57 100 100 104 104

GUI_O Pearson Correlation .089 .696** 1 .288* .051 .280** .248* .274** .078

Sig. (2-tailed) .371 .000 .033 .713 .005 .014 .005 .437

N 104 113 113 55 55 98 98 102 102

ATTA_vb Pearson Correlation -.145 .388** .288* 1 .241 .074 .146 .267* .091

Sig. (2-tailed) .268 .003 .033 .055 .582 .276 .041 .493

N 60 57 55 64 64 58 58 59 59

ATTA_vs Pearson Correlation .033 .236 .051 .241 1 .077 .222 .016 .054

Sig. (2-tailed) .801 .077 .713 .055 .564 .094 .903 .686

N 60 57 55 64 64 58 58 59 59

CBI-vb Pearson Correlation .236* .311** .280** .074 .077 1 .492** .391** .319**

Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .002 .005 .582 .564 .000 .000 .001

N 98 100 98 58 58 108 108 107 107

CBI-vs Pearson Correlation .046 .311** .248* .146 .222 .492** 1 .264** .304**

Sig. (2-tailed) .653 .002 .014 .276 .094 .000 .006 .001

N 98 100 98 58 58 108 108 107 107

CDQ-vb Pearson Correlation .112 .302** .274** .267* .016 .391** .264** 1 .694**

Sig. (2-tailed) .262 .002 .005 .041 .903 .000 .006 .000

N 102 104 102 59 59 107 107 112 112

CDQ-vs Pearson Correlation .098 .218* .078 .091 .054 .319** .304** .694** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .326 .027 .437 .493 .686 .001 .001 .000

N 102 104 102 59 59 107 107 112 112

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Appendix A

Creative Behavior Inventory (Hocevar, 1979, 1980)

Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4, 25-40.

This is an inventory, not a test. The inventory is simply a list of activities and accomplishments that are commonly

considered to be creative. For each item, circle the answer that best describes the frequency of the behavior in your

adolescent and adult life. Be sure to answer every question, and don’t worry about duplicate or similar items.

3-4 5-6 More than

Never Once Twice times times 6 times

1. Received an award for acting. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

2. Worked as an editor for a school or university literary publication. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

3. Worked as an editor for a newspaper or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

4. Constructed something that required scientific knowledge such as

a radio, telescope, scientific apparatus, etc.

(excluding school or university course work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

5. Painted an original picture. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

6. Designed and made your own greeting card. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

7. Gave a recital. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

8. Presented an original mathematics paper to a professional

or special interest group. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

9. Founded a literary magazine or similar publication. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

10. Made a craft out of metal (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

11. Made candles. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

12. Knitted or crocheted something (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

13. Put on a puppet show. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

14. Made your own holiday decorations. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

15. Built a hanging mobile (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

16. Received an award for performance in modern dance or ballet. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

17. Received an award for performance in popular dance. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

18. Had a mathematics paper published. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

19. Made a sculpture (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

20. Had an original music published or publicly performed. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

21. Had a piece of literature (poem/short stories, etc.) published in

a school or university publication. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

22. Developed an experimental design (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

23. Wrote poems (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

24. Entered a project into a science contest. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+


3-4 5-6 More than


25. Received an award for an artistic accomplishment. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

26. Received an award for making a craft. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

27. Made a craft out of plastic, Plexiglas, stained glass or a similar material. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

28. Made cartoons. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

29. Made a leather craft. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

30. Made a ceramic craft. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

31. Wrote music for one instrument. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

32. Wrote music for several instruments. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

33. Designed and made a piece of clothing 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

34. Cooked an original dish. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

35. Prepared an original floral arrangement. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

36. Applied math in an original way to solve a practical problem

(excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

37. Wrote an original computer program (excluding school

or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

38. Drew a picture for aesthetic reasons. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

39. Wrote the lyrics to a song. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

40. Choreographed a dance. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

41. Wrote a short story (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

42. Wrote something humorous such as jokes, limericks, satire, etc. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

43. Made jewelry. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

44. Recorded a music record or CD. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

45. Put on a radio show. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

46. Had a piece of literature (poem, short story, etc.) published

(not in a school or university-related publication). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

47. Took and developed your own photographs. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

48. Performed ballet or modern dance in a show or contest. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

49. Had art work or craft work publicly exhibited. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

50. Won an award for musical accomplishments. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

51. Wrote clever or humorous letters. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

52. Won an award for a scientific project or paper. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

53. Assisted in the design of a set for a musical or dramatic production. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

54. Had art work published in a school or university publication. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

55. Had a role in a dramatic production. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

56. Had art work published. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

57. Started but did not finish a novel. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+


3-4 5-6 More than


58. Wrote and completed a novel. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

59. Made or helped make a film or video tape. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

60. Won an award for some achievement in literature. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

61. Entered a mathematical paper or project into a contest. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

62. Had a scientific paper published. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

63. Planned and kept a garden. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

64. Kept a sketch book. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

65. Was a participating member of a symphony orchestra. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

66. Entered a contest as a singer. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

67. Entered a contest as a musician. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

68. Directed or managed a dramatic production. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

69. Designed and made a costume. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

70. Played an instrument (percussion, including piano) with a reasonable

degree of proficiency. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

71. Played an instrument (string) with a reasonable degree of proficiency. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

72. Played an instrument (brass) with a reasonable degree of proficiency. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

73. Played an instrument (wind) with a reasonable degree of proficiency. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

74. Participated in a drama workshop, club, or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

75. Participated in a craft workshop, club, or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

76. Participated in a writers’ workshop, club, or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+

77. Participated in a dance workshop, club, or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+


Appendix B

Creativity Domain Questionnaire

Please rate your creativity in the following domains. Some of these domains may seem to

overlap. Do not worry about this; rather, try to think about your creativity in each specific

domain as you understand it, without worrying about how it may overlap with other domains

listed. For domains that you are not personally familiar with, feel free to check ‘Not Applicable’.

Thank you!

How creative are you in:

Not Not at all Not very A little Somewhat Very Extremely

Applicable Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative

Accounting/Money Management

Acting/Performance

Advertising/Sales

Algebra/Trigonometry

Architecture/Design

Ballet/Dance/Gymnastics/

Creative Movement

Business/Entrepreneurial Abilities

Chemistry

Computers/Computer Science

Cooking

Crafts/Sculpture/‘Folk’ Art

Earth Sciences

Emotions

English Literature/Criticism

Fashion/Working with Clothing

Film and/or Theatrical

Writing/Direction

Geometry

Graphic Design/Multimedia

History/Historical Analysis

Horticulture/Gardening

Humor/Comedy

Interacting/Communicating with Children

Interacting/Communicating with Friends and Family

Interacting/Communicating with Strangers

Interior Design/Decorating

Law/Legal Skills


Life Sciences/Biology

Logic/Puzzles/‘Everyday Math’

Mechanical Abilities

Medicine

Music Composition

Naturalistic Science/Resource

Management

Painting/Drawing

Personnel Management/

Leadership

Photography

Physics

Playing a Musical Instrument

Political Sciences (inc. Economics)

Problem Solving

Psychotherapy/Psychiatry

Social Sciences (inc. Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology)

Solving Personal Problems

Spatial-Visual Abilities

Speech/Debate/Verbal Abilities

Spirituality/Religious Thought

Sports Performance

Sports Strategy

Teaching/Education

Textiles/Fabrics

Travel/Interacting with Different Cultures

Vocal Performance/Singing

Wood/Metal Working

Working with Animals/Animal Training and Management

Writing Fiction/Prose Writing Non-Fiction/Journalism

Writing Poetry

______________________________________________________________________________Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 20: 1065–1082 (2006).

Running head: VERBAL AND VISUAL SKILLS IN CREATIVE ......relationships within verbal and visual...

Documents

Transcript of Running head: VERBAL AND VISUAL SKILLS IN CREATIVE ......relationships within verbal and visual...