Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2354-0036
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Comparison of Competing Theories about Ideation and Creativity

Ivonne Chand O’Neal / Sue Hyeon Paek / Mark A. Runco
Published Online: 2015-11-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0018

Abstract

A measure of ideational behaviour, often used to estimate the potential for creative thinking, was administered to 796 children and their parents and teachers. Correlations among groups were explored. The data provided an opportunity to (a) compare four theories of creativity (a one-factor theory, 2 two-factor theories, and a three-factor theory) and (b) determine empirically how the measure of ideation should be scored (based on its empirical structure). Results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that one of the twofactor theories (Process and Product) best fit the data and was useful for comparisons of the children and their parents and teachers. Practical implications of the differences between parents and teachers are explored. Any effort to fulfil creative potentials, for example, would probably be the most likely to succeed if children, parents, and teachers agreed, and just as probable are difficulties if the three groups disagreed or considered different things when judging creative potential. Limitations of the study are also discussed.

Keywords: Ideas; Ideation; Creativity; Creativity Testing; Creative Process; Creative Product; Originality; Fluency; Flexibility

References

  • Abedi, J. (2002). A latent‑variable modeling approach to assessing reliability and validity of a creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 267-276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716-23.Google Scholar

  • Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Chand O'Neal, I., Schulz Begle, A., Runco, M. A. (2014, August). The Effects of Arts Integrated Instruction on Ideational Behavior in 4th and 5th Grade Students. Presentation at the 122nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • Chen, N., Roth, R. K. & Todhunter, J. E. (in press). I can do it! The effect of belief in stable luck on employee creativity. Business Creativity and the Creative Economy.Google Scholar

  • Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.Google Scholar

  • Cropley, D. & Cropley, A. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of organizational innovation: Resolving the paradoxes. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 29-40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DaVia Rubenstein, L., McCoach, D. & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for Creativity Scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 324‑334.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Finney, S. J. & Davis, S. L. (2003, April). Examining the invariance of the achievement goal questionnaire across gender. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

  • Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creativity, intelligence and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: Knapp.Google Scholar

  • Hocevar, D. (1979a). A comparison of statistical infrequency and subjective judgment as criteria in the measurement of originality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 297-299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hocevar, D. (1979b). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191-196.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Holland, J. L. (1961). Creative and academic performance among talented adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 132-143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hong, E., Milgram, R. M. & Gorsky, H. (1959). Original Thinking as a Predictor of Creative Performance in Young Children. Roeper Review, 18, 147-49CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, D., Runco, M. A. & Raina, M. K. (2003). Parents and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 427-438.Google Scholar

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Milgram, R. M. & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255-259.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, H. B. & Sawyers, J. K. (1989). A comparison of self and teachers ratings of creativity in fifth grade children. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 14, 179‑185.Google Scholar

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar

  • Noble, E. P., Runco, M. A. & Ozkaragoz, T. Z. (1993). Creativity in alcoholic and nonalcoholic families. Alcohol, 10, 317-322.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A. & Woong, L. (2006). Predicting ideational behavior from divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 55-63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.Google Scholar

  • Richards, R. (1999). Everyday creativity. In: M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity(1st ed.) (pp. 683-687). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. (1985). Reliability and convergent validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1075-1081.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. (1987). Interrater agreement on a socially valid measure of students’ creativity. Psychological Reports, 61, 1009-1010. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent and creative thinking. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. (2008). Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 93-96.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. (2013, October). The real creativity crisis. Keynote address to the Mississippi Association for Gifted Children, Hattiesburg, MS.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (1985). The originality and convergent validity of ideational originality in academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 483-501.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (2005). Parents' personality and the creative potential of exceptionally gifted boys. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 355-368.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. & Charles, R. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 537-546.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92-96CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. & Plucker, J. A. & Lim, W. (2000-2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393-400.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. & Bear, P. (1993). Parents' and teachers' implicit theories of children's creativity. Child Study Journal, 23, 91-113.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M. & Thurston, B. J. (1991). Environmental cues and divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Divergent thinking (pp. 79-85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A., Walczyk, J. J., Acar, S., Cowger, E. L., Simundson, M. & Tripp, S. (2013). The incremental validity of a Short Form of the Ideational Behavior Scale and usefulness of distractor, contraindicative, and lie scales. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 185-197.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Runco, M. & Richards, R. (1998). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health. Stamford, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar

  • Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shapiro, A. K. (1960). A contribution to a history of the placebo effect. Behavioral Science, 5, 109-135.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steenkamp, J. E. M. & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms - Technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Google Scholar

  • Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly? Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar

  • Vandenberg, R. J. & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vartanian, O., Bouak, F., Caldwell, J. L., Cheung, B., Cupchik, G., Jobidon, M. E., Lam, Q., Nakashima, A., Paul, M., Peng, H., Silvia, P. J. & Smith, I. (2014). The effects of a single night of sleep deprivation on fluency and prefrontal cortex function during divergent thinking. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-12.Google Scholar

  • Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (ed.), Manual of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1211-1272). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

  • Wallach, M. A. & Wing, C. (1969). The talented student. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-02-16

Revised: 2015-04-18

Accepted: 2015-08-11

Published Online: 2015-11-26

Published in Print: 2015-11-01


Citation Information: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, ISSN (Online) 2354-0036, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0018.

Export Citation

© 2015. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Ross C. Anderson, Christine Pitts, and Keith Smolkowski
Creativity Research Journal, 2017, Volume 29, Number 3, Page 244

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in