New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Week 12 Notes

by: Briana Hughes

Week 12 Notes PSY 3100 002

Briana Hughes
GPA 3.8

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes outline Readings 22 and 23 assigned for Week 12
Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity
Dr. Weisberg
Class Notes
Psychology, Creativity
25 ?




Popular in Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity

Popular in Psychlogy

This 11 page Class Notes was uploaded by Briana Hughes on Wednesday March 30, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 3100 002 at Temple University taught by Dr. Weisberg in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 20 views. For similar materials see Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity in Psychlogy at Temple University.


Reviews for Week 12 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 03/30/16
Chapter 9 The Psychometric Perspective, Part 1: Measuring the Capacity to Think Creatively  Is there a small universal set of general creative-thinking skills that underlie all creative thinking?  Can we use tests to measure creative capacities and potential?  Modern interest began around 1950 Guilford and the Modern Psychometric Perspective on Creativity  In 1949 presidential address to APA, suggested term Genius used incorrectly o Not person of high intelligence; originally person who made unique creative contributions o IQ different from capacity to think creatively, can use IQ tests for creativity (table 9.1 pg. 449)  Have one definite answer; creative problems don’t  Suggested creating tests that measured current creative ability as well as potential o Believed creative children our most valuable resource; could provide them with enrichment to help develop creative abilities/potential or lack of o Felt nurturing creative talent was best way to win war against communism o Used expertise from creating IQ tests  Confluence view of creativity - Proposed creativity part of personality of person o Confluence/coming together of several factors necessary to produce creativity  Need relevant personality characteristics + motivation Methods of Measuring Creativity Measures of Creative Accomplishment Achieved Eminence  Identified by whether or not works referenced i.e. in anthologies; experts can nominate them  Eminent individuals interviewed about life experiences, personalities, work styles etc. in lab  Historiometric methods used to examine creative products  Case studies Ratings of a Person’s Creativity  Can assess individual’s creativity by asking others o Teachers, supervisors, peer evaluations) Judgments of Products: Consensual Assessment Technique  Straightforward way to measure creativity is to rate creativity of actual creative produce o Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976)  Studied “problem finding” in art students o Amabile and colleagues  Undergrads produce work of art rated for creativity by experts (artists)  Judges can be no experts of the field, has been used with children Tests of Creative-Thinking Capacity: Testing Divergent Thinking  Divergent Thinking (Characteristic of creativity) - Guilford grouped together several different subskills of thinking o Capacity to produce ideas that diverge from the ordinary (Table 9.2 pg. 453) o Tests don’t ask about specific creative domains  Questions believed to provide info that’s useful in predicting which individuals possess thinking capacity to accomplish much in creative domains  Assumes specific processes underling creative thinking must be relatively general in applicability  Separate from intelligence as mode of thought o Divergent thinking is only one component of measuring potential to think creatively  Convergent thinking is another separate skill Attitudes and Interest Inventories (Table 9.3 pg. 455) Personality Inventories  Questionnaires etc. designed to measure personal characteristics of creative people (table 9.4 pg. 456)  The creative individual is one whose personality is oriented toward production of new things & breaking away from ordinary o Uses cognitive capacities to accomplish this task  Some propose creativity is critically dependent on personality characteristics rather than particular mode of thinking Biographical Inventories and Self-Reports of Creative Activities  Table 9.5 pg. 457  Ask about person’s family, interests, childhood, etc.  Sometimes ask individual to list accomplishments in creative domains  Some ask about creativity in ordinary activities i.e. cooking  (King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996) o Asked undergrads to list and describe creative achievements from past 2 years o Ask others to rate creativity of their accomplishment o Used aspects of consensual-assessment technique and self-reports of creative activities Cognitive Components of the Creative Process: Testing for Creative- Thinking Ability  How to measure creativity in ordinary people o Must develop tests that can be presented to non-specialists and tap into “the essence of creativity”  Guilford (1950) didn’t study creativity in action o Conclusions based on intuitions & logical analysis of how creative mind had to work given the task of producing novel outcomes  How reliable is this? Sensitivity to Problems  Necessity is the mother of creativity - Variation on idea that necessity is mother of invention o Individual must see deficiency in some aspect of world  Table 9.2 pg. 453 – Exercises A & B – designed to measure sensitivity to problems Is Necessity the Mother of Creativity?  Historical evidence that creative process occurs without necessity, even in the domain of invention o i.e. the airplane (no need to fly, people simply wanted to) Components of Creative Thinking  Divergent thinking: fluency, flexibility, originality o Core of modern psychometric view of Creative thinking (Guilford believed in was one component of multicomponent process) o General characteristic/trait of creative people o Contrasted with convergent thinking – used to narrow down ideas to something potentially useful o Guilford (1950) proposed the more ideas generated, the greater chances of producing useful one/creative outcome  Fluency of thought – capacity to produce large number of ideas in given period time that are relevant to situation (characteristic of creativity)  Table 9.2 – C-H measure fluency of thought  Verbal (C-G)  Figurative (H) o For people like children without fully developed language skills o Creative thinker must also be a Flexible thinker  May require thinker to break away from habitual ways of thinking  new directions  Measured in Table 9.2 (C-F) o Creative thinker will produce original ideas  Table 9.2 all exercises  Person who produces many original ideas is more likely to produce creative solutions to problems because solutions that are obvious to everyone do not work on difficult problems  Analogy to psychometrics of IQ – Guilford believed all people capable of creative thinking to some degree o Creativity normally distributed among population o Picasso, Edison, Mozart at middle of bell curve o There is continuity between processes that great creative thinkers use and those used by rest of people who produce small examples of creativity  Only an assumption  Weisberg believes case studies provide evidence of continuity of thinking but not for divergent thinking as the basis for creativity Other Tests of Creative-Thinking Capacity  Tests to measure creativity share same basic types of items with variations in content (not basic differences in logic underlying design of tests)  (Kogan & Wallach, 1965) designed tests for children to allow educators to determine creativity early as possible o Allow schools to provide additional support and enrichment  Guilford administered creativity tests in same environment as IQ tests o Wallach & Kogan (1965) proposed, especially in children, tests should be given in other environments o Administered tests in play like atmosphere o Examined effects of different testing environments on performance on divergent-thinking Mednick’s Remote Associates Test  Mednick (1962) o Hypothesis  Difference among thinkers is organization of Associative Hierarchies – sets of associative responses to stimulus situations  Noncreative people = steep hierarchies o Strong/dominant response to given situation o tend to be given all the time, making it harder to produce a less frequent response  Creative people = flat hierarchies (Divergent thinkers) o Several responses available, none of which is particularly strong o Greater tendency to produce unusual responses  original response  creative solution  Related to Poincare & Simonton’s views on unconscious thinking & creativity  Approached question of creative thinking from S-R perspective  Situation requires creative thinking as – stimulus  Produces associated – responses in thinkers o Testing it  Remote Associates Test (the RAT) Table 9.7 pg. 469  There is a single response to each item  HOWEVER, only measures capacity to think creatively; not directly measuring creative thinking  If answer item correctly, presumed to possess flat hierarchies which can be used in other situations demanding open-ended creative thinking o i.e. Analogy of measuring lung capacity to determine ability to compete in marathon rather than running speed Tests of Creative-Thinking Capacity: Summary  Creative thinker is assumed to possess capacity of divergent thinking to extreme degree; different from average person Testing the Tests: The Reliability and Validity of Tests of Creative-Thinking Capacity Are Tests of Creative-Thinking Capacity Reliable?  Does the test produce consistent outcomes? o Test-Retest reliability – stability of test over several administrations o Split-half reliability – If 2 sets of items measure the same thing, person’s score on two halves of test should be about the same  Divergent-thinking tests reliable o BUT depend on condition the test is given under  If told to be creative, do better on test  Divergent-thinking is a strategy that can be applied; not automatic/unchanging trait/characteristic  Not a flaw because: o Kids not used to these types of tests o No single correct answer, only 2 strategies: produce common responses or produce unique responses Are Creative-Thinking Tests a Valid Measure of Creative Capacity?  Does it measure what it was designed to measure?  If test reliable but not valid, it is useless  What exactly are Creative-Thinking tests supposed to measure?  3 periods in development of tests of creative thinking capacity: o Begins Guilford (1950) APA address o 1980s strong reservations concerning value of direction of research o Modern – psychometric perspective supporters have presented new findings & reanalyzed old results Discriminant Validity  Measures a capacity that other tests do not measure  Barron and Harrington (1981) o Found mixed reviews on relationship between IQ tests and divergent- thinking tests  Some high correlations – do not involve 2 different abilities  Some low correlations – they might be independent  Depends on environment test given in, sample, specific tests used  Ratings of students’ creativity by teachers vs. teachers’ rating of students’ intelligence o High and positively correlated o Are these independent dimensions of a person’s performance?  Maybe only difference is in attitude that the bring to tasks  Creative individual wants to use intelligence to produce new things Face Validity  Obviously measures what it was designed to measure o When test of basketball knowledge asks about names of players and teams recent championship teams o Researchers accept on its face that remote associations underlie divergent-thinking which is the foundation of creative thinking  Therefore, believe divergent-thinking tests have face validity  Evidence that remote-associates view of creative thinking is incorrect o Remote-associates view: producing many ideas is critical for producing creative ones then converging down to useful ones  Mednick nor Guilford’s tests examined production process of people; assumed they were remote analogies  Not the case; Top-down process so promising directions taken form beginning  Guernica, DNA Double Helix, Airplane, Light Bulb, Lab Studies of insight problem solving by Fleck and Weisberg o DNA – used Pauling’s modeling approach, came from content of their expertise o Guernica-deeply rooted in expertise  Suggests creative-thinking tests only possesses apparent face validity  Seems plausible but may not be accurate  Lack of face validity not a critical flaw o Test can still be useful  Can use for classifying and selecting individuals for some purpose  Positive correlation between horses’s speed and number of letters in name (No apparent face validity but…) o Criterion validity: correlates with some criterion performance in which one is interested o Predictive validity: enables us to predict performance in some other situation o Difference between them: whether the predicted performance is assessed in the same situation or at a later time Criterion and Predictive Validity of Divergent-Thinking Tests  Binet’s IQ test possessed criterion validity – possible to determine that it was successful  Guilford’s creative-thinking tests were based on his intuitions on how creative process worked  Study of relationship between performance on creative-thinking test and criterion measures of creativity o Baer (1993) found divergent-thinking performance not significantly correlated with performance on creative tasks  Guilford believed creative-thinking tests had predictive value (criterion value with a time delay) o Baer (1993) support is poor o Plucker (1999) concluded tests are valuable o Cropley (1972) gave divergent-thinking tests to junior HS students then assessed creative achievements 5 years later  Found no significant correlations between divergent-thinking scores and creative achievements o Kogan and Pankove (1974) used Wallach and Kogan tests (1965) on th th children in 5 and 10 grades; then filled out questionnaire about creative accomplishments 12 grade  10 grade – (weak effect) marginally significant in predicting crthtive accomplishments 2 years later  5 grade – no significant effect  IQ scores obtained in both grades made stronger predictive contributions = suggests high discriminant of validity divergent- thinking tests o Hocevar (1980) tested 94 undergrads for intelligence and ideational fluency + self-report index of creative achievement  Neither IQ or divergent thinking predicted creativity with more than modest accuracy  Large differences in predictive ability of 2 tests across domains  IQ sometimes stronger o Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) had art students draw still life that they created out of objects presented to them + personality & divergent-thinking tests  Problem finding – preliminary preparation period crucial to creative outcome = predictive of later creative career success – 7 years later  Same 18 years later  More creative students = more open to changes  Divergent-thinking scores unrelated to creative outcome o Torrance (1974)  Short term predictive value  Found significant correlations between divergent-thinking scores and various criterion variables  Validity? o Criterion might not be valid measure of creativity  Long term predictive value  University of Minnesota High School o All students given Torrance Verbal Tests o 12 years later, Most complete questionnaires about activities in all areas o Researchers determined quantity & quality of creative achievements and scored for creativity of aspirations o Results: Divergent-thinking tests predicted later creative accomplishments o Baer’s criticism  Validity?  Criterion might not be valid measure of creativity  High correlation between intelligence and criterion creativity variables  Torrance test may be based on intelligence and not on divergent thinking ability o Indirect support of ordinary- thinking perspective  2 elementary schools in Minnesota th  Given Torrance test for 3 consecutive years (5-8 grades)  22 years after, follow up study on creative achievements  Pluckner used multiple-regression analysis Findings: o verbal test score predicted creative achievement more strongly than intelligence did o Divergent-thinking score did not successfully predict later creative achievement  Pluckner’s Conclusion: Torrance tests do possess predictive validity and these tests provide useful info about creative potential Validity of Divergent-Thinking Tests: Conclusions and a Remaining Question  Mixed reviews  Most reasonable conclusion: relationship between divergent-thinking scores and creative achievement is complicated; simple conclusion may not be possible o Barron and Harrington (1981) ‘Some divergent-thinking tests, under certain conditions, scored by certain criteria do measure abilities related to creative achievement and behavior in some domains’ A Remaining Question: What Do Divergent-Thinking Scores Mean?  If conclusions about creative process found in case studies is accurate then divergent-thinking is not a critical component of creative thinking The Generality versus Domain Specificity of Creative-Thinking Skills  Is creativity a general trait? o Few people make significant contributions in multiple creative domains especially when different subject matter  Suggests creativity is domain-specific  BUT maybe it’s just time constraint – takes 10 years to produce true creative achievement in 1 domain so almost impossible to do it in multiple domains o BUT 10 year rule suggests specific skills crucial in creative achievement; need domain-specific expertise  Baer (1998) asked ordinary people, vast range of ages to produce creative products in variety of domains  Conclusion: creative ability is specific in nature  Raises problems for Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences as well as theories that assume creativity is general state o Best poets didn’t produce best fiction stories which opposes the idea of Linguistic intelligence  Baer (1998) taught 7 graders divergent- thinking skills related to poetry; trained group and non-trained group asked to write poems and short stories  Findings: poetry-writing skills increased in trained group but not story-writing skills  Conclusion: training in skills relevant to creative thinking only has effect on specific domain of skills  Pluckner (1999b) had people provide questionnaire responses as well as descriptions of most creative accomplishments  Findings: generality in questionnaires + Domain specificity from judges’ ratings of descriptions  Pluckner (1999b) reanalyzed Runco (1987) data; questionnaire responses and creative products judge  Conclusion Pluckner (2004) “Method effect” – affects conclusion of generality vs. specificity in creative achievement o Older methods i.e. questionnaires produce evidence for generality o Newer methods i.e. consensual- assessment technique produce evidence for domain specificity  May be inherent weakness because it is subjective  HOWEVER, judges reliability ratings higher than responses on questionnaires (Pluckner, 2004)  ALSO, questionnaires are subjective too  Baer (1998) argued evidence of generality from questionnaires may be due to factors unrelated to creativity o Aspects of strategies person uses in responding to questionnaire  Definition of the term award may be relative  Some reluctant to give selves credit; some overly eager to give selves credit o May show generality but may not be accurate


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.