ED 044 012

DOCUMENT RESUME

24 EC 030 606

AUTHOR Roweton, William E.TITLE Creativity: A Review of Theory and Research.

Theoretical Paper No. 24.INSTITUTION Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Research and Development

Center for. Cognitive Learning.SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C.BUREAU NO BR-5-0216PUB DATE 70CONTRACT OEC-5-10-154NOTE 32p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

EDRS Price MF-$0.25 HC-$1.70*Creative Thinking, *Creativity, Research Projects,*Theories

The paper reviews theory and research in the area ofcreative thinking and behavior. Theoretical interpretations orexplanations cf creative thinking are classified into fivecategories: definitional (introspective opinions on the nature ofcreativity), dispcsitional (Perscnality-based), psychoanalytic,behavioristic (traditional S-R psychology), and operational(specifying conditions for increasing creative behavior) approaches.The theoretical ccntributions of each approach are analyzed. It isconcluded that existing explanatory constructs have relied uponlarger, established systems (SR behaviorism or Freudian psychology),and that no fully matured theoretical statement has been developedand directed specifically toward creativity. (Author/KW)

,ax -eyaN A t;a :a.r a » F, :._ s. -1 t x a u .a.*H I''. r:a.:,-h..u.: r.T :.;..,',+i .., ..^; ,t...T . !fir. a...a.atr .=

EC030606

Theoretical Paper No. 24

CREATIVITY: A REVIEW OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

By William E. Roweton

Report from the Task and Training Variables inHuman Problem Solving and Creative Thinking Project

G. A. Davis, Principal Investigator

Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Cognitive LearningThe University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

March 1970

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION 8 WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

Publi thed by the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, supportedin part as a research and development center by funds from the United States Office of Education,Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyreflect the position or policy of the Office of Education and no official endorsement by the Officeof Education should be inferred.

Center No. C-03 / Contract OE 5-10-154

NATIONAL EVALUATION COMMITTEESamuel BrownellProfessor of Urban EducationGraduate SchoolYule University

Henry ChaunceyPresidentEducational Testing Service

Launor F. Carter Martin DeutschSenior Vico President on Director, Institute for

Technology and Development Developmental StudiesSystem Development Corporation New York Medical College

Francis S. Chase Jack Ed lingProfessor Director, Teaching ResearchDepartment of Education DivisionUniversity of Chicago Oregon State System of Higher

Education

Elizabeth KoontzWage and Labor Standards

Administration, U.S.Department of Labor,Washington

Roderick McPheePresidentPunahou School, Honolulu

G. Wesley SowardsDirector, Elementary EducationFlorida State University

Patrick SuppesProfessorDepartment of MathematicsStanford University

*Benton J. UnderwoodProfessorDepartment of PsychologyNorthwestern University

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER POLICY REVIEW BOARD

Leonard BerkowitzChairmanDepartment of Psychology

Archie A. BuchmillerDeputy State SuperintendentDepartment of Public Instruction

Robert E. GrinderChairmanDepartment of Educational

Psychology

Russell J. HosierProfessor, Curriculum

and Instruction

Clauston JenkinsAssistant DirectorCuordinating Committee for

Higher Education

Herbert J. KlausmeierDirector, R & D CenterProfessor of Educational

Psychology

Stephen C. KleeneDean, College of

Letters and Science

Donald J. McCartyDeanSchool of Education

Ira SharkanskyAssociate Professor of Political

Science

B. Robert TabachnickChairman, Department

of Curriculum andInstruction

Henry C. WeinlickExecutive SecretaryWisconsin Education Association

M. Crawford YoungAssociate DeanThe Graduate School

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Edgar F. BorgattaBrittingham Professor of

Sociology

Anne E. BuchananPrefect SpecialistR & D Center

Robin S. ChapmanResearch AssociateR & D Center

Robert E. DavidsonAssistant Professor,

Educational Psychology

Frank H. FarleyAssociate Professor,

Educational Psychology

Russell J. Hosier Wayne OttoProfessor of Curriculum and Professor of Curriculum and

Instrucrion and of Business Instruction {Reading)

*Herbert J. Klausmeier Robert G. PetzoldDirector, R & D Center Associate Dean of the SchoolProfessor of Educational of Education

Psychology Professor of Curriculum andInstruction and of Music

FACULTY OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORSVernon L. AllenProfessor of Psychology

Ted CzajkowskiAssistant Professor of Curriculum

and Instruction

Robert E. DavidsonAssistant Professor of

Educational Psychology

Gary A. DavisAssociate Professor of

Educational Psychology

M. Vere DeVaultProfessor of Curriculum and

Instruction {Mathematics)

Frank H. FarleyAssociate Professor of Educational

Psychology

Lester S. GolubLecturer in Curriculum and

Instruction and in English

John G. HarveyAssociate Professor of

Mathematics and of Curriculumand Instruction

Herbert J. KlausmeierDirector, R & D Center

Professor of EducationalPsychology

Donald LangeAssistant Professor of Curriculum

and Instruction

James MoserAssistant Professor of Mathematics

Education; Visiting Scholar

Wayne OttoProfessor of Curriculum and

Instruction (Reading)

Milton 0. PellaProfessor of Curriculum and

Instruction IScience)

Thomas A. RombergAssociate Director, R & D Center

Professor of Mathematics and ofCurriculum and instruction

B. Robert TabachnickChairman, Department

of Curriculum andInstruction

Richard L. VenezkyAssistant Professor of English

and of Computer Sciences

Akin VoelkerAssistant Professor of Curriculum

and Instruction

Larry WilderAssistant Professor of Curriculum

and Instruction

Peter WolffAssistant Professor of Educational

Psychology

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Herbert J. KlausmeierDirector, R & D Center

V.A.C. Henmon Professor ofEducational Psychology

Mary R. QuillingDirector

Technical Development Program

Thomas A. RombergAssociate Director

James WalterDirector

Dissemination Program

Dan G. WoolpertDirector

Operations and Business

* COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

STATEMENT OF FOCUS

The Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learningfocuses on contributing to a better understanding of cognitive learning by chil-dren and youth and to the improvement of related educational practices. Thestrategy for research and development is comprehensive. It includes basicresearch to generate new knowledge about the conditions and processes oflearning and about the processes of instruction, and the subsequent develop-ment of research-based instructional materials, many of which are designedfor use by teachers and others for use by students. These materials are testedand refined in school settings. Throughout these operations behavioral scien-tists, curriculum experts, academic scholars, and school people interact, in-suring that the results of Center activities are based soundly on knowledge ofsubject matter and cognitive learning and that they are applied to the improve-ment of educational practice.

This Theoretical Paper is from the Task and Training Variables in HumanProblem Solving and Creative Thinking Project in Program 1. General objec-tives of the Program are to generate new knowledge about concept learning andcognitive skills, to synthesize existing knowledge, and to develop educationalmaterials suggested by the prior activities. Contributing to these Program ob-jectives, this project is focused on investigating creative problem solving as atrainable cognitive skill. The development and testing of creative thinking pro-grams follows research on basic problem-solving variables in different situations.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the consistently insightfulassistance of Professor Gary A. Davis during the preparation of this manuscript.

iv

CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgement iv

Abstract vii

I Introduction 1

II Approaches to Creativity 3

Definitions of Creativity 3

Behaviorism 4

Psychoanalytic 5

Dis positional 6

Operationalism 9

Other Programs, Procedures, and Courses 11

Creativity in Classrooms 13

III Current Status of Theory in Creativity 15

References 17

Additional References 25

A BST R ACT

Creative behavior is a rapidly expanding interest area. In the presentreview, various theoretical interpretations or "explanations" of creativethinking are classified into five major categories: (1) definitional approaches,primarily introspective opinions regarding the nature of creativity; (2) disposi-tional or personality-based theories, focusing largely on the traits of creativeindividuals; (3) psychoanalytic viewpoints, consisting mainly of Freudian,neo-Freudian, and humanistic approaches; (4) behavioristic theories, drawingfrom traditional S-R psychology; and (5) operational approaches, which primar-ily are concerned with specifying conditions for increasing creative behavior.It was concluded that no fully matured theoretical statement has been devel-oped and directed specifically toward creativity. Existing explanations haverelied upon larger, established systems such as S-R or Freudian psychology.A meaningful and experimentally testable theory of creativity is yet to be pro-posed.

vii

INTRODUCTION

The scientific study of creativity is slowlycoming of age. In the last 10 years, interesthas been increasing in the experimental studyof creativity in educational psychology, inindustry, and in education. Guilford (1967)noted that psychology until 1950 had beengenerally unconcerned with the complex phe-nomena of creativity., although there wererare exceptions (e.g., Cleeton, 1926; Hans-brook, 1931; Harms, 1939; Hartman, 1931;Hutchinson, 1931; Jastrow, 1898; Simpson,1922). Industry, however, motivated more byprofit than intellectual curiosity, had beenconcerned with idea production in the late1930's, e.g., Osborn began his famous brain-storming in 1938 and General Electric's crea-tivity course was initiated in 1937. Nonethe-less, Guilford's (1950) epoch-making paperdefinitely introduced the study of creativityto the rigors of experimental psychology. Thefounding of the Creative Education Foundationin 1957, the relatively recent introduction ofthe oiLir.nal of Creative Behavior in 1967, andrecently produced programs designed to en-hance creativity in educational settings (e.g.,Davis & Houtman, 1968) have further indicateda remarkable increase of interest.

The literature surveyed in numerous reviews(Davis, Manske & Train, 1967; Golann, 1963;Hahn, 1968; Mooney, 1957; Taylor, 1964) hasindicated that creativity has been studied tra-ditionally as a cognitive process or as a pro-duct which reflected the underlying creativeprocess.

In the present taxonomy, three approachesare relevant to a "process" orientation to crea-tivity: definitional, dispositional, and psycho-analytic. The definitional approach is theleast rigorous of all; it essentially consistsof a list of opinions based largely upon each

author's introspective reflectinn of what crea-tivity might be. The dispositional (personality)approach employs questionnaires and person-ality inventories (e g , Gough' s AdjectiveChecklist), interviews, "living-in" assess-ments,and other dispositional indicators suchas intelligence and cognitive style measures.The psychoanalytic approach, the third majorprocess-orientation, consists almost solelyof contributions from clinical (e.g., neo-Freudian) psychology; however, humanistic(e.g., Maslow and Rogers) psychology alsomaintains a process-orientation to creativity.Creativity is treated as very complex humanbehavior sometimes shrouded in a mysticalaura of inexplicability. Creativity, accord-ing to all three viewpoints, is natural humanbehavior for which all humans have somecapacity.

A "product" orientation to creativity in-cludes both the S-R behavioristic and theoperational approaches. The S-R behavior-istic approach, really the only inroad of ex-perimental psychology, is comprised of thecontributions of only a few researchers (e.g.,Maltzman, 1960; Mednick, 1962; Staats,1968). The most common research procedurehas been some form of verbal association, asan independent training variable (Maltzman,1960) or as a dependent measure (Mednick,1962). Either way, the influence of a tradi-tional response-hierarchy definition of prob-lem solving is always apparent.

The operational approach, on the other hand,places special emphasis upon training creativity.Creativity is defined by operations within train-ing programs (e.g., Davis & Houtman, 1968)and learnable techniques (e.g., the checklistprocedure) which have been shown to enhancecreative output (cf., Parnes & Harding, 1959).

1

11

APPROACHES TO CREATIVITY

The theoretical contributions of the defini-tional, behavioristic, dispositional, psycho-analytic, and operational interpretations willbe further elaborated in the following sections.It will be evident that no fully matured theo-retical statement has been developed and di-rected specifically to creativity. Existing ex-planatory constructs have relied upon larger,established systems such as S-R behaviorismand Freudian' psychology. Experimental psy-chology is long overdue for a direct and de-tailed theory of creativity.

DEFINITIONS OF CREATIVITY

Definitions, as explanatory constructs increativity, have had an extended history.These definitions are conceptualizations of"what creativity is," but seldom lend them-selves to an empirical test; the greatest valueof definitions as explanatory constructs isheuristic. Therefore, for experimental psy-chologists, definitions, like Freudian psy-chology, can provide a potentially rich sourceof testable hypotheses.

Definitions of creativity are quite varied:

1. Sensiiivity: "Creativity is the en-counter of the intensely conscioushuman being with his world" (RolloMay).

2. Originality: "Creative ability ap-pears simply to be a special classof psychological activity charac-terized by novelty" (Newell, Shaw,& Simon).

3. Practicality: "Creativity is thedisposition to make and to recog-nize valuable innovations" (H. D.Las swell) .

4. Originality and Practicality:"Creativity is the occurrenceof a composition which is bothnew and valuable" (Henry A.Murray).

5. Product: "It would seem, then,that there is no unique entityidentifiable as the creative pro-cess. All we can identify is theproduct. And it is from the pro-duct that we infer the existenceof a process" (H. Herbert Fox).

6. Product and Process: "The pro-duct and the process are bothimportant. Without the processthere would be no product. With-out the product . . . there mightmight not be more than fantasy

. . " (Eugene A. Brunelle).

7. Morphological Synthesis: "Crea-tivity is the production of meaningby synthesis" (Myron S. Allen).

8. Combinations: "Creativity is amarvellous capacity to grasp twomutually distinct realities withoutgoing beyond the field of ou-: ex-perience and to draw a spark fromtheir juxtaposition" (Preface toMax Ernst Exhibition, 1920).

The dozens of other relevant aefini-tions (e.g., see Kaiser Aluminum News,1968) can be placed into at least one ofthese eight categories. The large num-ber of definitions attests to the interestin creativity by individuals of many di-verse vocations and, in addition indicatesthe scope of human behavior involving cre-ativity.

3

BEHAVIORISM

According to some S-R formulations, if theproduction of original and/or creative ideas ispracticed and reinfor...:ed, the emission of suchlow dominance ideas is likely-to increase(Maltzman, Brlgartz, & Breger, 1958) , Maltz-man demonstrated that when S free-associatedto a list of stimulus words, responses becamemore original as S produced more and more re-sponses to the same verbal stimuli (Maltzman,Bogartz, & Simon, 1.959; Maltzman & Gallup,1964; Maltzman, Simon, Raskin, & Licht,1959). Originality in successive ''free-association" sessions was facilitated byprevious associative experience (Maltzman,1960), an effect lasting for several days(Maltzman, Simon, & Licht, 1959). Also,performance on the Remote Associates Test(Freedman, 1965; Maltzman, Belloni, & Fish-bein, 1964) and the Maier two-string problem(Maltzman, Brooks, Bogartz, & Summers, 1958)was facilitated by "relevant" associative pre-training, i.e., word association training sug-gesting solutions to a particular problem.Maltzman, Raskin, and Simon (1959) notedthat practice in free-associating did not fa-cilitate originality unless Ss were also re-quired to provide a number of different responsesfor each stimulus word as opposed to givingsingle responses to a longer list of words forthe sane amount of time.

The results of some studies have no beenconsistent with Maltzman's findings (Britt,1967; Gallup, 1963; Unger, Caron, & Parloff,1963). Gallup, for instance, noted that Sswere just as creative on the second list ofstimulus words in a free-association paradigmwithout repeated presentations of the firststimulus list.

Stoats (1968) has dealt with creativity asan example of complex human behavior. Crea-tivity occurs when two or more stimuli whichnormally do not elicit one another as mediatingstimulus events beconie associated. The "cre-ative" association is not serendipitous sinceit results from a series of "events'' which hasforced the stimuli into spatial and/or temporalcontiguity. For instance, S could observe ateflon-coated pan in a sink, associate teflonwith sink, and therefore come to suggest thatsinks should be teflon-coated for easier clean-ing. Stoats' position is not limited to verbalcreativity since stimulus contiguity may re-sult from either verbal or nonverbal (e.g.,perceptual) activities.

Earlier studies in traditional human prob-lem solving have investigated topics relatedto creativity such as "functional fixedness"or inflexibility. For example, if in the Maier

4

two-string problem (Maier, 1931) S thinks ofusing a screwdriver only in its most commonway, it is very unlikely that he will immedi-ately think of using the screwdriver's weightas a pendulum (Adamson, 1952; Birch &Rabinowitz, 1951). Also, a "mental set" touse a similar procedure to solve the same andsimilar problems can interfere with S's per-formance on the Luchins' (Luchins, 1942)v.-ger-jar problem as new, more efficient logi-cal operations present themselves. Perform-ance can be improved by rest periods (Adamson& Taylor, 1954) or by presenting the problemto S in a logically and perceptually coherentmanner (Maier, 1930).

NIednick's (1962) Remote Associates Test(RAT) assumes an associative (i.e., behavior-istic) definition of creativity. A S is pre-sented three words (e.g., Christmas, birth-day, and line) and is asked to supply a fourth,related term (i.e., party). Certain investi-gators (Higgins, 1966; Houston, 1963; M. T,Mednick, S. A. Mednick, & E. V. Mednick,1964; S. A. Mednick, 1962) have concludedthat performance on this task is related to bothcreative behavior and intelligence (Mednick& Andrews, 1967). On the contrary, Andrews(1965) has suggested that performance is de-pendent on S's communicational abilities,strength of motivation, etc., and in fact isindependent of creative ability.

The behavioristic approach to creativityhas notable assets and liabilities. Concern-ing contributions, certain methodology (freeassociation training, RAT) has permitted rigor-ous and scientific investigations of originalityin verha' tasks. In addition, the use of older,well- established S-R paradigms and conceptshas demonstrated commonalities between oneform of originality and other examples of ex-perimentally studied human behavior. Never-theless, the behavioristic approach is limitedin generality primarily to highly verbal adults.Also, the responses thus far investigated havemostly been a "spewing" of words with littleattention to the production of ideas of practi-cal consequence.

Many experimental psychologists maybelieve that all definitive studies of cre-ativity have been performed well withinthe behavioristic tradition. True, somestudies have approached the training oforiginality (Maltzman, 1960) and creativ-ity (Mednick, 1962; Staats, 1968) em-ploying S-R mechanisms as explanatoryconstructs. However, since experimentalpsychology's view of creativity has beensomewhat confining, the scientific studyof creativity is certainly not limited toS-R experimentalists.

PSYCHOANALYTIC

Traditional

One of the earliest theoretical approachesto creativity is f )und. in Freudian psychology.Freud (see Brill, 1938) studied creative indi-viduals in the literary and visual arts. ForFreud, creativity and, for that matter, allcultural achievements result from the diver-sion or sublimation of libidinal energy fromsexual activities to asexual goals, becauseefforts to satisfy the sexual drive are re-peatedly frustrated. Sublimated libidinalenergy also may result in extreme intellectual-ization and/or other defensive reactions.Sublimation essentially permits S to investenergy in socially approved scientific, ar-tistic, and ideological activities. Creativityis a particularly appropriate sublimation sinceit represents escape into a "fantasy life" notinvolving frustration or anxiety.

Anxiety, a key issue in psychoanalyticthought, has been related to creativity byFleischer (1965), Hadley (1965), and Nydes(1962). In typical Freudian language Nydes(1962) noted that creativity represents anovercoming of anxiety; that is, reality entersdeep into the psyche without causing fear orpanic. Hadley (1965) administered theMinnesota Tests of Creativity, the BarronAnagrams Tests, the Sarason Test AnxietyScale for Children, and the Sarason GeneralAnxiety Scale for Children to 215 Seventh-and Eighth-Grade Ss. More creative Ss ex-hibited less test anxiety.

Certain standard clinical techniques havealso been used to investigate creativity.Bowers (1965) found that post-hypnotic sug-gestions increased creativity on the RemoteConsequences Test. In addition, Pogue(1964) used the Rorschach and the TAT pro-jective tests to find that creativity is relatedto IQ, self-esteem, and socio-economicstatus (SES) . Projective techniques havealso been used to establish relationshipsbetween creativity and "integrated and pro-ductive" responses in research chemists(Stein & Meer, 1954), intellectual compe-tence, breadth of interests, independence ofmind, self-assertiveness (Schmiek, 1954),and reduced repression and considerableaffect and primary-process thinking directedat external objects (Myden, 1957).

Subsequently, Myden (1959) compared theRorschach protocols of 20 artists and amatched group of 20 non-artists. The artistswere of superior intelligence, exhibited muchof their potential, were outer-oriented, non-conforming, "healthy," and had a rich "inner

life." Importantly, artists exhibited signifi-cantly less id repression than non-artists, sup-porting Freud's notion that creative individuals'psychic energy (primary process thinking) ismore readily accessible.

Of course, psychoanalytic explanations ofcreativity have not received complete confirma-tion even by neo-Freudians. For instance,Racusen (1952) studied 50 normal, 20 schizo-phrenic, and 20 neurotic Ss and reported thatperformances on creative and projective testswere not appreciably related.

Neopsychoanal ysis

Many theorists have divorced themselvesfrom traditional Freudianism either because ofinconsistancies in the "old" school or becausethe traditional theory did not adequately handlecertain behaviors.

Kris (1952) conceptualized creativity as therelaxation of the boundaries of ego forces whichusually keep the id in check. Creative inspira-tion then, is characterized as a flexibility and/or lessening repression stemming from a re-leased personality system. The concept ofsublimation is extended into a two-part pro-cess: (1) directing energy toward acceptablegoals and then (2) elaborating, a dedicationto solution-oriented work. Creativity is thusmore than an unconscious diversion of libidinalenergy; it also involves a conscious awarenessof the problem and a desire to obtain a solution.

Jung (1953), another neo-Freudian, studiedartistic creativity. To Jung, creativity has twomodes of expressionpsychological and vi-sionary. The psychological mode, which con-siders S to be actively involved in the creativeprocess, was totally dependent upon humanconsciousness. The visionary mode, of par-ticular importance to Jung, involved the repro-duction of "primordial experiences" or "arche-types" from the "collective unconscious."Jung believed that the human unconscious fromone generation to the next stored the memoryof "critical" events, and visionary creativitywas S's passive acceptance of an unconsciousanimation of these previous evolutionary events.

Humanistic Orientation

Humanistic psychologists consider creativ-ity a product of a "healthy" self, a symbol ofman's growth-potential. Creativity is not thepessimistic avoidance of anxiety through fan-tasy but a direct confrontation involving a de-liberate change in the relationship betweenself and the environment.

5

Rogers (1962) studied creative behaviorwithin the context of interpersonal relations.Creative expression is a natural tendency Ina milieu exhibiting psychological safety (ac-cepting S as worthy, no external evaluation,empathetic understanding) and psychologicalfreedom (free symbolic expression and notsimply indulgence). The creative individualhas an openness to experience, an internallocus of evaluation, and an ability to "toy"with elements. Rogers considers creativityto be qualitatively the same process whetherexhibited by a housewife or research physicist.

Perhaps the most well-known humanisticpsychologist is Maslow (1958; see alsoGowan, Demos, & Torrance, 1967), whostresses personality instead of achievementsand products in his version of "self-actual-izing" creativity. Some characteristics of aself-actualizing personality are boldness,courage, freedom, spontaneity, perspicuity,integration, and self-acceptance. Creativeindividuals are thus seen as psychologicallyhealthy, capable of voluntary "regression"(suggesting creativity is a child-like quality),not "compulsive-obsessive," and not fearfulof no-,r2lty. Maslow also indicated that somecreative expression may be dependent on botha self-actualizing personality and years ofspecialized training, i, e . , special-talentcreativity.

Summary

The psychoanalytic and neopsychoanalyticapproaches seem to treat creativity as a mys-tical human ability which is somehow depend-ent upon personality development. Withinsuch frameworks, emphasizing unconsciousforces and complex personality variables(e.g., ego forces), creativity would havelittle appeal for experimentally oriented re-searchers. Nevertheless, psychoanalyticconstructs have had an extended history andshould be considered a viable approach.

Humanistic and existential psychologiesexhibit certain important biases not presentin laboratory-oriented psychology. Maslow(1968), for instance, indicated a full appreci-ation of man as a complex human problemsolver and concern for an environment con-ducive for man's optimal (i.e., creative)functioning.

DISPOSITIONAL

It would seem intuitively evident that cre-ative expression most basically depends upon

6

S's personality and those variables crucial topersonality development. Therefore, in somerespects, the dispositional approach, consis-tent with the older psychoanalytic approach,examines the most basic behavioral structures(i.e., personality dimensions) of creative ex-pression. Unlike psychoanalysis, tho dispo-sitional approach employs methodological tech-niques similar to those used by experimentalpsychology.

Personality

Kagan (1965) studied the effects of certainpersonality variables and ''testing" environ-ments upon creativity. He noted that S's at-tention to novelty, attitudes of acceptance,motives for differentiation, expectancy of suc-cess or failure, and level of anxiety duringtesting were important determinants of creativeexpression. If creative problems were pre-sented in a "test-like" environment, anxietyresui'..ed which, in turn, debilitated creative

Dentler and Mackler (1964)also demonstrated that anxious Ss were lessoriginal.

Meyer (1953) related creative production toethnocentrism. When Ss were divided into highand low ethnocentric groups, the number ofideas produced by both groups was about thesame, but the ideas produced by the low eth-nocentric Ss were more original.

In order to .:elate creativity and still otherpersonality variables, Gough (1957) requiredSs to analyze perceptual fields and make es-thetic judgments. Along with the results ofother tests, Gough concluded that the creativeindividual was intellectually competent, habit-ually curious, cognitively flexible, estheticallysensitive, and dignified. Also, creative Ssconformed less readily to group opinion.

Some studies have assumed that membersof certain vocational groups exhibit more na-tural creativity than other groups. Implicit inthis assumption is a belief that different per-sonality types typically choose different voca-tions, that is, work not in conflict with theirpersonality. Some apparently related studiessought to identify personality or °ther traitsdistinguishing degrees of creative expressionwithin a given occupation.

First, Drevdahl (1961) studied professionalcreativity in psychologists. Drevdahl dividedpsychologists into three groups: creative,noncreative and productive, and noncreativeand nonproductive. Drevdahl found that pro-fessional educational training was a primaryinfluence upon creative potential. Family andemotional factors were also of some importance,

but socio-economic status (SES) did not appearto be a crucial variable.

Second, some studies (Fisichelli & Welch,1947; Guilford, 1957; Hirsch, 1958; Lowen-feld & Brittel, 1959; Welch, 1946) have in-vestigated creativity in artists. Fisichelliand Welch compared professional artists, artstudents, and non-artists on several tasks,e.g., constructing furniture from wood n blocks.Both the professional and amateur artists weremore creative than non-artists.

Getzels and Csikszentimihalyi (1964) re-ported that art students expressed more inter-est in "aesthetic" values than "economic" and"social" values. Also, art students preferredmore complex visual forms in a self-expressivecreativity task, the Creativity Design Test.

Third, Bloom (1955) and others (e.g.,Marzill, 1957; Walker, 1952; Whelan, 1959)studied creativity in chemists and mathema-ticians. Although the results of the studiesdiffered somewhat, creative chemists/mathe-maticians generally were complex personalitieswho enjoyed reading and were independentthinkers, etc. (See also Buhl, 1958, and VanZeist & Kerr, 1951, 1952.)

Fourth, creative physical scientists (seeHarris, 1955; Mandell, 1950; Sprecher, 1957)were more often men (Roe, 1951, 1953b) , Prot-estant (Knapp & Goodrich, 1952; Roe, 1953b),socially distant (McCelland, 1967; Cattell &Drevdahl, 1955; Stein, 1953), and hardwork -ing (Roe, 1951, 1953a, 1953b). Also, crea-tive physical scientists were disturbed by"complex" human emotions (Knapp, 1956; Roe,1951; Teevan, 1954) and enjoyed music butnot poetry and art. They were strongly mascu-line (Terman, 1954), interested in analysis anddetails (Terman, 1954), and were usually firstborn (Roe, 1951).

Incidentally, when comparing creativity Incertain occupational groups (e.g., artists vs.non-artists), the results may be difficult tointerpret because of certain confounding fac-tors. For example, studies indicating thatartists prefer complex forms more often thannon-artists do not seem surprising since aninterest in colors, complex figures, etc., likelyaccounted for a student's initial interest in art.Also, when given self-expressive creative arttests (e.g., elaborating upon plain circles),artists, of course, would be judged more orig-inal and creative; artistic (technical) skill isinvariably confounded with overall artistic ex-pression.

The University of California's Institute forPersonality Assessment and Research (IPAR)has studied the involvement of personality fac-tors in creative expression (e.g., Barron, 1969) .The IPAR conceptualizes creativity (i.e., the

production of original ideas) as a complex ofaccessible personality traits normally distrib-uted throughout the population. IPAR has as-sembled personality inventories (e.g., GoughAdjective Checklist), projective tests (e.g.,Thematic Apperception Test: Originality Rat-ing), aesthetic preference measures (e.g.,Barron-Welsch Art Scale; Turney Designs),and others (e.g., Unusual Uses), all of whichwere used to detect recurrent personality char-acteristics of creative individuals. Unlikethe stereotype, creative individuals werefound to be mentally "healthy" and did notexhibit, as a rule, excessively odd socialbehaviors. Barron (1962) reported that crea-tive individuals were more observant of othersand their behaviors, valued truthful and ex-plicit reporting, exhibited more energetic be-havior, demonstrated flexibility in the percep-tion of themselves and others, were surroundedin their environment by complexity, fantasy,and imaginative thoughts, exhibited high sensi-tivity to synthesis and exacting discrimination,were aware of their own and others' feelings,questioned the implicit, preferred the complexand asymmetrical and, in general, were psy-chodynamically more complex.

In sum, many studies relating personalityand creativity are solely dependent upon Ss'verbal reports (i.e., personality inventories,adjective checklists) . Data from verbal self-reporting, like introspection of an earlier agein psychology, lacks empirical validity in thesense of not being publicly observable, repeot-able, and falsifiable. Other studies utilizingthe dispositional approach, and especiallythose operationally facilitating creative ideaproduction (discussed in a subsequent section),use response measures more consistent withexperimental psychology.

For other discussions relating personality,vocation, and creativity, see Garwood (1964),Graves, Ingersoll, and Evans (1967), Hyman(1961), and MacKinnon (1961, 1962, 1965,1967). Additional studies have also relatedcreativity to child-rearing patterns (Sears,1967), to general preferences for incongruity(Hake, 1967), to delinquency (Kuo, 1967), tobilingualism (Jacobs, 1966), and to other per-sonality variables (Green, 1957; Hitt & Stock,1965; Rees & Goldman, 1961; Rutherford,1960).

Intelligence and Creativity

An association between creativity and in-telligence (considered here an integral com-ponent of personality) has been reported insome studies (e.g., Meir & Stein, 1955;

7

Wade, 1968) but not confirmed in others (e,g.,Taylor, 1959).

Guilford (1950, 1962) introduced experi-mental psychology to the ucientific study ofcreativity through his classic structure of in-tellect model. "Creativity" lb called divergentthinking in the structure of intellect model,which implies a resistance to converging upona single solution in favor of producing manysolutions. Using factor analytic procedures,components of particular importance to diverg-ent thinking were identified in Guilford's cre-ativity tests (e.g., Unusual Uses problem) as(a) sensitivity to problems, (b) word fluency,(c) ideational fluency, (d) associational flu-ency, (e) expressional fluency, (I) spontaneousflexibility, (g) adaptive flexibility, and (Ii) orig-inality. Wilson, Guilford, and Christensen( 1 9 5 3 , 1954) administered a battery of creativ-ity, intelligence, and other tests to 4 1 0 aircadets. Their analyses indicated that verbalcomprehension, numerical facility, and gen-eral reasoning factors also were involved increative performance.

Thurstone (1952), another factor analystinterested both in creativity and intelligence,reported that profiles of Ss' "primary abilities"can be used to predict creative potential. Pri-mary intellectual abilities of some importancewere (a) space factors (e.g body orientation),(b) perceptual speed (e.g., seeing detailsquickly), (c) closure factors (e.g., fusing anincomplete perceptual field), and (d) memory.

Savoca (1965) investigated the effects ofreinforcement, race, IQ, and socio-economicstatus (SES) upon divergent thinking. Culturaldeprivation was negatively correlated to diver-gent thinking (i.e., Ss who were Negro, of lowintelligence, and of the lowest SES group ex-hibited the least creative potential). Two in-dependent research teams have investigatedthe relationships between intelligence andcreativity. First, Getzels, Jackson, andothers (Getzels & Jackson, 1959, 1961a,1961b, 1962; Getzels, Jackson, & Burt, 1962)compared two groups of children ranging fromhigh school to elementary school agehighlyintelligent Ss without concomitant high crea-tivity and highly creative Ss without concom-itant high IQs. Getzels and Jackson (1961b,1962) noted that both groups were of similarscholastic achievement but were different onvalue orientations, effects on teachers, fan-tasy productions, career aspirations, and homeenvironments. Highly intelligent Ss morereadily conformed to classroom behavioralstandards and were therefore preferred byteachers (Getzels & Jackson, 1958). Highlycreative students were judged more disruptivein the classroom, were permitted more inde-

8

pendence at home, and reported more imagina-tive fantasies. Note, however, that theGetzels and Jackson findings may not be gen-eralizable since all of the Ss studied werestudents at the University of Chicago Labora-tory School and therefore represent a restrictedrange of (high) intelligence.

Getzels and Jackson studied only the lowintelligence-high creativity and high intelli-gence-low creativity groups. Wallach andKogan (1965a, 1965b, 1967) subsequentlysampled a more representative student popu -lation, 151Pifth-Grade Ss from four popula-tions: Ss of high intelligence-high creativity;high intelligence-low creativity; low intelli-gence-high creativity; and low intelligence-low creativity. Unlike the Getzels-Jacksonresults, creative test performance and intelli-gence were not highly related, but the tencreativity measures were highly intercorrelated.While Getzels and Jackson reported that theirfive measures of creativity intercorrelated(low) as well with each other as these mea-sures did with intelligence, the Wallach andKogan study definitely indicated that creativityis a separate dimension.

Wallach and Kogan further noted that eachof its groups exhibited distinctive behaviors.High intelligence-high creativity Ss typicallydisplayed desirable academic and extracurricu-lar school behavior while high intelligence-low creativity students were compulsive aca-demic achievers. Low intelligence-high cre-ativity and low intelligence-low creativity Ss,less liked by teachers, emitted attention-getting classroom behavior more often than Ssin the high intelligence groups. In addition,Ss in the low intelligence -low creativity groupexhibited better social relations than low in-telligence-high creativity Ss.

The results of studies relating creativityand intelligence and/or academic performancehave bean quite inconclusive since the find-ings of one study often contradicted the find-ings of another. Evaluating creativity-IQstudies, Ripple and May (1962) astutelyreported that any statistical relationshipbetween creativity and IQ depended uponthe range of intelligence scores sampled.Scores obtained from heterogeneous IQsamples are more predictive of creativebehavior than intelligence measures fromrelatively homogeneous samples merelybecause increasing population varianceincreases correlations (i.e., restrictedrange problem) . Also, the results of eachstudy needed to be qualified, since theydepended upon the population tested andthe measures of creativity and intelligenceemployed (see Thorndike, 1963a, 1963b).

Numerous other discussions and studies re-lating intelligence and creativity are available(e.g., Crop ley, 1966; Guilford, 1966; McNemar,1964; Moore, 1966; True, 1957; Vernon, 1964).

Cognitive Style and Creativity

"Cognitive style" is not a good descriptiveterm because it elicits more confusion thanclarity (Coop, 1969). A measure of cognitivestyle in human problem-solving research couldrefer to general attitudes (Getzels & Jackson,196ia), openness to experience (Schulman,1966), performance on certain perceptual tasks(e.g., Spotts & Mack ler, 1967), general prob-lem-solving strategies (Bruner, Goodnow, &Austin, 1956), and so forth.

Getzels and Jackson (1961a) compared somechild- rearing variables of highly intelligentand highly creative Ss. Parents of highly in-telligent children were very watchful and criti-cal of their offsprings' behavior. The parentsof highly creative Ss focused on less "visible"qualities, e.g., abstract ideals. Therefore,the latter group might be considered more "open"to experience.

Schulman (1966) related the performance of89 Fourth Graders en a creativity task (DrawingCompletion Test, DOT) and two perceptualtests (Changing Figures Test; F'inding of En-closed Areas Test, FEAT). The correlation be-tween performance on the DCT and the FEATwas low but significant, r = .18; p < .01.Ss scoring high on the DCT also scored highon the FEAT, but not the reverse, The resultssuggested that perceptual behavior may pre-dict creative behavior in some cases. Con-ceivably, creativity and perceptual behaviormay be related to another and more basic per-sonality dimension.

Mack ler (1964; see also Mack ler & Shontz,1964, 1965) developed a Life Style Scale tomeasure visual and kinesthetic behaviors infive groups: art majors, dance majors, physi-cally disabled, visually but not physicallydisabled, and a control group. As might beexpected, art majors were most visually ori-ented, while dance majors scored high kines-thetically. Performance on the Circles Test,a creativity test requiring Ss to elaborate onplain circles, discriminated art majors as agroup from the remaining Ss. Physically dis-abled Ss performed worst of all on the totalbattery of measures.

Spotts and Mack ler (1967) related twomeasures of "field dependence-independence"to creative test performance. They adminis-tered to 138 college males the Embedded Fig-ures Test (EFT, short form), the Hidden Figures

Test (HFT), two verbal (Ask and Guess; Un-usual Uses) and two non-verbal (Circles Test;Decorations) creativity tests and also obtainedtwo intelligence measures. Cognitive stylescores were used to divide Ss into high, medi-um, and low field dependence-independencegroups. The cognitive style groupings did notdiffer on IQ. The results indicated that field-independent Ss (as measured by the EFT) weresignificantly more creative, as assessed by acomposite creativity score. Both cognitivestyle measures, EFT and FIFT, were related toscores on the School and College AbilitiesTests, if the verbal scores were excluded.

Creative individuals may be more highlysensitive to environmental cues. Mendelsohnand Griswold (1964) divided 108 college stu-dents into groups of high, medium, and lowRemote Associates Test (RAT) scores. The Sswere instructed to memorize 25 words ("focal"stimuli) while 25 other words ("peripheral"stimuli) were presented auditorially. Afterten minutes, Ss were asked to solve 30 double-solution anagrams. Ten each of the previouslypresented "focal" and "peripheral" words wereanagram solutions; ten of the anagram wordswere new ("neutral"). Finally, students wereasked to list all words which they could recallfrom the previous memory task. The resultsindicated that the three groups did not differsignificantly in the number of neutral anagramssolved, while all groups solved more "focal"anagrams than "neutral" ones. Highly crea-tive Ss solved significantly more anagrams;that is, creative Ss utilized both "focal" and"peripheral" cues while solving anagrams moreso than did Ss in the other groups. The groupsdid not differ on the recall task. Mendelsohnet al., suggested that the results are attribut-able to the superior reception and/or process-ing of previously presented stimuli by highlycreative Ss.

Generally, the usefulness of many of theabove creativity studies seems quite restrictedand questionable, particularly since the relia-bility and validity of the instruments employedwere rarely established. Certainly, the re-sults and conclusions are no more generaliz-able than the reliability and validity of thetests will permit. The most scientific approachto studying creativity employs testing instru-ments and experimental procedures, some ofwhich are exemplified in the operational ap-proach, yielding objective, reliable and validresponse data.

OPERATIONALISM

The above approaches to creative behaviordid not attempt to deliberately manipulate,

9

alter, or in some way enhance creative behav-ior. Viewpoints categorized under operation-alism define "creativity" by the specific pro-cedures used to train it. Many existing books(Osborn, 1963), programs (Edwards, 1967; seealso McPherson, 1968), courses, and tech-niques have sought to systematically alter thecreative problem solver's milieu and/or trainingso as to identify effective determinants of cre-ative behavior.

The most popular operational approaches tocreative thinking have been group problemsolving courses. Even A. R. Stevenson's (seeSamstad, 1962) early course in 1937 at GeneralElectric demonstrated that methods of idea pro-duction can be taught and encouraged. A morerecent but similar industrial course sponsoredby AC Spark Plug Division of General Motorsdemonstrated that a 10 week training coursecan increase the number of ideas suggestedboth by "intuitively" productive and nonintui-tively productive thinkers (Simberg & Shannon,1959). Two effective group-think methods arebrainstorming and Synectics.

Brainstorming

The most successful group problem-solvingtechnique has been Osborn's (1948, 1963)brainstorming procedure. Although many (e.g.,Mathews, 1956) doubt whether a basic person-ality trait can be altered in merely 8 or 10 hoursof group problem solving, Osborn's (1963) tech-niques have received considerable support.According to Arnold (1959), typical brainstorm-ing sessions disallow evaluation of ideas (i.e.,judgment is deferred), encourage "wild" ideas,teach "hitchhiking" (i.e., building upon eachother's ideas), and discourage the involvementof "specialists."

Osborn (1963) noted that the creative think-ing process consists of three stagesfactfinding (problem definition, preparation), ideafinding (idea production, then development),and solution finding (evaluation, adoption).Osborn's creative thinking stages are merelyrestatements of Wallas' (1926) steps in humanproblem solving. Nevertheless, brainstorminghas uniquely augmented Wallas' preparation,incubation, illumination, and verification witheffective problem-solving principles, espec-ially deferment of judgment.

Experimentally, brainstorming principleshave met with some success. Arici (1965) in-structed half of his Ss in brainstorming princi-ples, while the remaining Ss were not awareof brainstorming procedures. Some Ss workedin groups, others worked individually. ThoseSs employing the brainstorming procedures

10

thought of more ideas and ideas of a higherquality than did the non-brainstormers. Ideaquality was related to idea frequency. Cohen,Whitmyre, and Funk (1960) reported that theproduction of "unique" ideas was most facili-tated when brainstorming principles were em-ployed by pairs of adults. Hansen (1962) alsosuccessfully applied some of Osborn's brain-storming techniques in a Harvard BusinessSchool marketing class.

Parnes and his colleagues (Meadow, Parnes,& Reese, 1959; Parnes, 1963a, b; Parnes &Meadow, 1959, 1960) have consistently foundthat brainstorming instructions significantlyfacilitate idea production; that is, more ideaswere produced with deferred judgment proce-dures than when ideas were criticized as de-veloped. Brainstorming procedures were suc-cessful regardless of age, se), or IQ levelstested (Parries, 1962); also, the deferredjudgment principle can be successfully ap-plied in individual as well as group problem-solving sessions. Other studies (Meadow &Parnes, 1959; Parnes, 1961) indicated thatcreative ideas were more frequently producedlater in the idea-producing sessions, suggest-ing that idea quantity and quality indeed wereintegrally interdependent (see also Manske &Davis, 1968).

Of course, numerous disconfirmations (e.g.,Gerlach, Schutz, Baker & Mazier; 1964) havequestioned the efficacy of brainstorming pro-cedures. Arici (1965) in a study previouslymentioned found that individuals produced moreideas than groups, regardless of whether or notthe brainstorming procedures were introduced.The Dunnette, Campbell, and Jaastad (1963)study suggested that four-man brainstormingteams, compared to individuals, inhibitedidea production, provided that Ss working in-dividually had had group experience (see alsoTaylor, Berry, & Block, 1958).

Other studies have discussed brainstormingand its relation to personality variables(Lindgren & Lindgren, 1965a, 1965b) and in-structions (Turner & Rains, 1965).

Synectics

William J. J. Gordon's (1956, 1961) groupproblem-solving method, Synectics, was de-signed for industry. As with Osborn, Gordon'smethod is a group problem solving procedure.Gordon (see Alexander, 1965; Lincoln, 1962)assumed that everyone was latently creativeand that affective human behavior was just asimportant as intellect in creative production.Synectics demands that idea producers becomeinvolved and detached simultaneously from

problems so that the "strange becomes familiar"(problem is simplified and clarified) and the"familiar becomes strange" (new viewpoints aresought). Since Gordon originally felt thatswearing would break down internal censors sothat creative potential could freely flow, ses-sions are noted for blatant earthiness. LikeOsborri's brainstorming, synectic sessions deferjudgment, encourage wild ideas, and use groupmembers of heterogeneous backgrounds.

In the spirit of the traditional problem.solv-ing steps, synectics (see Prince, 1968) alsohas defined its creative thinking stages. First,a general statement of the problem is given.Next, the many ramifications of the problem arediscussed by the group. Members express theiropinion(s) of what the problem concerns, and thegroup chooses to develop one opinionthe"Problem as Understood." Finally, this specificproblem is examined and solutions sought.

Synectics stresses analogical thinking where-by Ss generate similes and metaphors, particu-larly those drawn from nature, to facilitate ideaproduction. After posing a problem, the leaderencourages participants to ask how animals,insects, or even plants have solved similarproblems. Solutions for a parking problem, forexample, may be found by considering how beesor ants "store things." Proposing ideal butapparently ridiculous problem solutions, suchas having insects work on command to solve atransportation problem, is another synecticmethod for stimulating new viewpoints on aproblem. "Playing with" or free-associatingword meanings may lead to still more new ideas.For example, speculating on the meaning of theword "opening" (cutting, prying, unfolding, etc.)may suggest new designs for a can opener.Ideas stimulated by using the synectic methodsmay seem "silly" and inappropriate for solvingserious problems. However, it is exactly thewild, far-fetched, perhaps "silly" ideas whichare sought, since these often lead to the mostcreative and workable problem solutions. Forinstance, when faced with the problem of in-venting a vapor-proof closure for space suits,one synectic group imagined insects running upand down the closure manipulating little latchesa far-fetched idea which led to a workableair-tight zipper. "Ideal" metaphorical solutionsare then evaluated by specialists and techni-cians, an integral aspect of synectic problemsolving.

OTHER PROGRAMS, PROCEDURES,AND COURSES

Morphological Synthesis

Myron Allen (1962, 1966), creator of morpho-logical synthesis, presents a technique poten-

tially capable of producing more ideas and ideacombinations than any other available procedure.Ss first identify two or more important charac-teristics or dimensions (e.g. , color, shape) ofa problem and then list specific values (e.g.,red, blue, green; square, round, triangular) foyeach. They then examine all possible combina-tions, utilizing one value of each characteristic.For example, if students are asked to "invent"a new line ut pop-up toasters, all combinationsof 15 shapes, 20 different colors and color pat-terns, and 5 sizes would instantly produce 1500possible products. It is possible, however,that a rigid application of the morphologicalanalysis procedure conceivably might preventa thinker from approaching a problem from dif-ferent, more imaginative perFnectives (Davis,1969). For example, students intent on exam-ining the 1500 combinations of ideas for pop-up toasters may fail to detect entirely newmeans of toasting bread. The method is logi-cally sound and is incorporated into manycourses and programs (e.g., Davis & Houtman,1968). The morphological synthesis techniqueinvariably produces an enormous quantity ofidea combinations in a very short time.

Attribute Listing

Crawford's (1948, 1954) attribute-listingtechnique utilizes S's abilities to observe,analyze, and relate aspects of the environment.The Ss itemize important attributes (or parts) ofa product and then consider each attribute as asource of potential change or improvement. Forexample, with an object as simple as classroomchalk, S might learn to identify the attributesof size, shape, color, and material. Then, byconsidering changes for each of these individualattributes, ideas for a large variety of chalk maybe quickly produced. Of course, the attribute-listing procedure is limited to problems whoseimportant attributes are identifiable. Attributelisting both sensitizes students to variousproperties of objects and equips them with asimple yet very productive means of innovation.This technique, like other operational approaches,equates creativity with deliberate problem-solv-ing procedures, i.e., creativity is not totallyinspirational and accidental.

Checklist Procedure

Essentially, an idea checklist is a preparedlist of possible sources of innovation in respectto a given problem. Davis and his colleagues(Davis, 1969; Davis & Houtman, 1968; Davis& Roweton, 1968; Train, 1967; Warren & Davis,

11

1969) have developed "long" and ''short" ideachecklists derived from Osborn's (1963) "73idea-spurring questions."

The "short" checklist intended to stimulateideas for changing a product (0avis, Roweton,Train, Warren, & Houtman, 1969), includedjust seven items: (1) add and/or subtract some-thing; (2) change color; (3) vary materials;(4) rearrange parts; (5) vary shape; (6) changesize; (7) modify design or style. Typically, Ssare instructed to list as many physical changesas possible for a common object. Comparedwith the performance of control subjects, col-lege students using this checklist producedsignificantly larger numbers of creative ideasfor changing or improving a thumbtack and akitchen sink (Davis & Roweton, 1968).

Roweton (1969) recently reported that theshort checklist is even more effective if Ss arerequired to list adjectives for 5 minutes priorto creative problem solving, but, only if thechecklist remained available to Ss throughoutthe experiment. Hence, mental "set" (i.e.,adjective production) may be an importantadjunct to the checklist procedure.

Warren and Davis (1969) compared the idea-generating effectiveness of the short checklistdescribed above, Osborn's "73 idea-spurringquestions," the morphological synthesis pro-cedure, and a no-training control condition.Results indicated that Ss in the Short Checklistand the Morphological Synthesis Groups pro-duced the greatest total number of ideas andthe greatest number of high-quality ideas.

One might argue that this technique couldmake students dependent on checklists, thuspreventing them from "thinking for themselves."However, idea checklists mainly serve tostimulate original thinking. Thus, they areintended to supplement, not to replace, moreintuitive forms of creative behavior (Davis,1969).

Creative Analysis

Upton and Samson's (1963) workbook-program,Creative Analysis, is appropriate for both highschool and college students. The workbookprovides practice in naming qualities, notingrelationships (similar or different) , abstracting,and using similies, metaphors, and analogies.It obviously focuses upon strengthening manyverbal abilities. Although Upton and Samsonclaim the workbook can substantially raise IQ's,little experimental documentation of these as-sertions is available.

12

Instructions and Pre-problem Activities

Davis and Manske (1966) suggested thatoriginal (and creative) ideas are typically com-binations of previously unrelated ideas. Us-ing the Unusual Uses Test, their method ofstimulating new combinations of ideas was toinstruct Ss to imagine themselves in particularsituations and then to find uses for particularobjects within those situations. For example,Ss might be instructed to "imagine you are ona picnic at the beach. List as many uses asyou can for a hanger within that situation."Compared with control Ss who did not receivethe "situation" instructions, the instructed Ssproduced a significantly larger total number ofideas, a larger number of ideas rated as orig-inal, a higher proportion of original ideas(original/total), a larger number of "good"ideas (rated as both original and practical),and a higher proportion of "good" ideas ("good"/total).

Some investigators have shown how S'sproblem-solving attitude relatcs directly tocreative idea production. Maier and others(Maier & Hoffman, 1960, 1961, 1965; Maier& Solem, 1962) have studied group problem-solving environments. If a group leader con-sidered his subordinates as "idea men," inno-vative solutions were more probable, and Sswere found to he more satisfied with theirsolutions (Anderson & Fielder, 1964; Maier &Hoffman, 1961). Also, in small problem-solv-ing groups of four college Ss each, solutionswere judged more creative on the second pres-entation of the same problem (IVIaie & Hoffman,1960) or if the task were perceived by the prob-lem solvers as a problem as opposed to a de-cision (Maier & Solem, 1962).

Other pre-problem activities effect idea pro-duction and the likelihood of original responses.Maddi, Char lens, Maddi, and Smith (1962)presented Ss with a single stimulus continu-ously, free activity, or a novel stimulus. Ona subsequently administered adjective check-list, Ss who were exposed to the same contin-uous stimulation exr.ressed the greatest desirefor novelty and yet produced the least imagina-tive stories on a projective test.

Using Guilford's Plot Titles task, in whichSs attempt to generate clever titles for sim-ple story plots, Johnson and Zerbolio (1964)found that practice producing clever titleswould lead to more accurate judgments ofthe cleverness of other titles, while prac-tice judging did not facilitate title produc-tion.

CREATIVITY IN CLASSROOMS

Programs and Procedures

Most educators believe that creative behav-ior should be taught and/or encouraged inschool. Some feel that creativity can best beencouraged by very "clever" teachers withinsubject-matter contexts (e.g., Williams, 1967).Torrance (1959, 1965, 1968a) suggested thatclassroom atmosphere and teacher attitudescan help children become sensitive to and tol-erant of new and unusual ideas. However, thedeliberate facilitation of creative behavior hasbeen largely ignored by education.

Creative thinking courses and programs ex-pressly designed for classrooms are primarilydirected at teaching young students attitudesand abilities conducive to creative behavior.Parnes and his associates produced a numberof experimental and theoretical papers relatedto his course in creative thinking taught at theUniversity of Buffalo (Meadow & Parnes, 1959;Meadow, Parnes, & Reese, 1959; Parnes,1961, 1962, 1963a, 1963b, 1967a, 1967b;Parnes & Meadow, 1959, 1960). The mostsignificant conclusions were that creativeimagination can be deliberately developed,with accompanying increases in such person-ality traits as confidence, initiative, andleadership potential (Parnes, 1962) . Thecourse focuses on the "organized" or "forced"procedures used successfully in industry tosystematically generate ideas. The 1953 and1957 editions of Osborn's (1963) Applied Im-agination were used as texts, although in theearliest years of the course Osborn's (1948)Your Creative Power was used (Parnes, 1962).The most strongly emphasized concept inOsborn's books, hence in Parnes' course, isthe principle of deferred judgment, sometimesreferred to as the "forced separation of thecreative and judicial functions." In additionto Osborn's brainstorming procedure, Ss weretaught the checklist and attribute-listing pro-cedures and procedur?s for systematicallyevaluating solutions. Students are also briefedon such critical issues as cultural, perceptual,and emotional blocks to creative imagination,keeping "idea records," finding and definingproblems; most importantly, the students aretaught that every individual can increase hiscreative potential with training and practice.

More recently, Parnes (1968) developed ahigh school creative thinking program, avail-able only on microfilm, based upon his collegelevel workbook (Parnes, 1967a, b).

':ovington, Crutchfield, and Davies' {1966)sell-administered Productive Thinking' Programtrains creative thinking skills in Fifth andSixth Grade Ss. General Problem Solving,Series One of the program, consists of a se-quence of detective stories. Along with thechief cartoon characters ("Jim," "Lila," and"Mr. Search," a part-time detective), Fifthand Sixth Grade students attempt to solveeach mystery. The development of favorableattitudes toward "thinking," one of the pro-gram's primary objectives, occurs by buildingup Ss' self-confidence in dealing with com-plex thinking tasks and demonstrating 'Jvalue of such principles as ''don't be .itraid ofbeing wrong," "don't give up too easily,""everyone can learn to use his mind." Theprogram teaches the student to define in hisown words the problem he is working on, tobe "planful" in attacking the problem (e.g.,systematically listing the main ideas, thenexploring the particular ideas which followfrom the main ones), to check ideas againstthe pertinent facts, to search for many andunusual ideas, and to look at the problem fora different point of view if he gets stuck.Opportunity for repeated practice of thesethinking guides is built in, since they are usedrepeatedly in solving the mysteries. The Pro-ductive Thinking Program, instead of requiringthe student to make a "correct" response, pro-vides feedback to the student in the form of arange of valuable ideas, worthwhile questions,or fruitful strategies which he might have sug-gested at that point in the mystery. The stu-dent also receives vicarious reinforcementthrough seeing Jim and Lila successfully solvemysteries by using the "thinking guides."

The Myers and Torrance (1964, 1965a,1965b, 1966a, 1966b) five Idea Books encour-age attitudes favorable to creativity by rein-forcing imaginative responses to nonsensequestions such as "Does the sun sound tiredtoday?" The abilities of students in the "in-termediate" grades are strengthened by exer-cises in remembering, free-associating, dis-cerning problems, perceiving relationships,imagining and elaborating on wild ideas, pre-dicting or making up consequences of unusualevents, filling in information gaps, pretending,and being aware of sights and sounds. Theyalso are trained to use descriptive adjectivesto find unusual uses for common objects, tomake up story plots, puzzles, punch lines,mysteries, and even more exercises.

Over a number of years Torrance has devel-oped creativity tests designed for use with his

13

Idea Books but which have become the most (oronly) standard test battery in creativity research.Seven verbal (e.g., product improvement, un-usual uP,'3s, guess causes) and three nonverbal(figural) tests are available (Torrance, 1968b),each with explicit scoring instructions. Inci-dentally, the originality and frequency scoresare unfortunately confounded in Torrance's tests,since S's originality score is obtained by add-ing the originality scores of the ideas withoutdividing by the number of ideas produced. Al-though not perfect, the Torrance tests are themost commonly used set of measures available.

Davis and Houtman's (1968) creative think-ing program for Seventh and Eighth Grade stu-dents , Thinking Creatively: A Guide to Train-ing Imagination, has combined'the positiveaspects of previous programs by including manydifferent learnable idea-generating procedures.Through humorous story dialogue, cartooncharacterizations, and exercises, Thinking Cre-atively, individually or group administered,teach;;s attitudes, abilities, and techniquesappropriate for creative behavior (Davis, 1969).For example, through the actions of the story'sfour charactersMr. I (a backyard scientist),Max (a talking bear), and Dudley and Maybelle(young children and friends of Mr. I)studentslearn the attitude of "constructive discontent,"the notion that virtually anything can be im-proved. Also, students learn to readily acceptwild and unusual ideas as part of the creativeprocess. Concerning abilities, Mr. I contin-ually reminds students of their inherent poten-tiality to become better "idea finders" withappropriate practice and procedure. Studentsare taught four main idea-finding techniquesattribute listing, morphological-synthesis,checklist, and synectics methods. Exercisesare provided for the practice of each technique.

Davis, Houtman, Warren, and Rowoton (1969)reported that, in a preliminary field test, re-sponses to an attitude questionnaire and threedivergent production tasks (such as thinking ofchanges and improvements for a door knob)showed Thinking Creatively to be effective.Twenty-three Ss (21 Seventh- and 2 Eighth-Grade students) who studied the program in a10-week creative thinking course produced 65%more ideas on the divergent thinking tasks (ideaswhich were rated as significantly "more creative")than 32 Seventh-Grade control Ss enrolled in acreative writing course. There also was goodindication that the trained Ss acquired attitudesmore favoring creativity, including confidencein their own creative ability, than the control Ss.

14

Additional Procedures

Cartledge and Krausr7 (1963) selected 120Ss from 187 First Graders who obtained lowscores on several (Torrance) non-verbal crea-tivity tests. Experimental Ss, but not controlSs, received in five 20-minute sessions in-structions in Osborn's brainstorming principlesand practice in generating ideas to improve atoy. Both the experimental and the controlgroups were given either a quantitative (allresponses reinforced) or qualitative (only orig-inal responses reinforced) motivational treat-ment. The non-verbal creativity tests werereadministered and the results indicated thatexperimental Ss increased their creativityscores significantly more than did the Con-trol Ss. Type of motivation had no effect.Unfortunately, Cartledge, et al., did notfollow up the original experiment to assessthe more important long-term effects oforiginality training in First Grade.

Scott and Sigel (1965) tested the effectsof "inquiry" training in Fourth, Fifth, andSixth Grade physical science classes. In-quiry training permits students more freedomand individualized activities which are con-sidered conducive to idea production. Mea-sures of science concepts learned, divergentthinking, and cognitive styles were obtained.Results indicated that Fifth Grade studentsreceiving inquiry training learned scienceconcepts better than FifthGraders under con-ventional teaching. Also, students presentedinquiry training were more flexible behavior-ally and more attentive to details.

Anderson and Anderson (1963) gave SixthGrade boys "originality training" in the formof 10 30-minute sessions in which the boyslisted uses for familiar stimulus objects.When tested on different objects, trained Ssgave more novel responses than control Ss.There were no differences between the twogroups, however, in solving three insightproblems.

As a final note on training creativity ineducation, just cne interesting voice ques-tions the value of encouraging divergentthinking in children at all. Wallen (1964)suggests that, conceivably, training innon-evaluative divergent thinking may en-courage sloppy, illogical, and incoherentthinking. Furthermore, he notes, there isno clear evidence that such training willincrease the number of outstanding creativeindividuals.

III

CURRENT STATUS OF THEORY IN CREATIVITY

Neither the definitional, behavioristic,psychoanalytic, dispositional, nor the opera-tional approaches, singularly or in combina-tion, adequately deal with creativity. No ex-isting approach, for instance, simultaneouslyinvestigates both relatively simple laboratory(e.g., unusual uses, product-improvementproblems) and complex natural (e.g., artistic,poetic) creative expression. Furthermore,studies have inadequately attended to thevalidity and reliability of their creativity mea-sures and to certain apparently crucial covari-ates , e.g. , intelligence. In addition, manyindependent variables, relatively easy to ma-nipulate, have not been investigated. Someexamples might be transfer phenomena, bio-logical correlates, arousal level, and so forth.Also, particularly concerning creative thinkingbooks, programs, and techniques, little con-sideration has been given to some obviousquestions regarding longitudinal effects oftraining procedures, developmental trends(aged vs. young) of creative expression, com-parative (human vs. sub-human problem-solv-ing behavior) studies, techniques designed forspecific subject-matter areas (a certain tech-nique may be more facilitative in one subject-matter area than another), etc. Regardless ofthe status of present approaches, however,certain promising trends suggest an "ideal"approach.

This ideal approach to the study of crea-tivity most basically requires objective (validand reliable) response data. Essentially, atheory, hypothesis, or definition of creativity,is scientifically acceptable only if the behav-ior to which the approach refers is publicallyrepeatable, testable, and potentially falsifia-ble (see Baldwin, 1967). Any effort to restrictthe generation of such hypotheses will serveto limit the scope of scientific investigations.

Furthermore, the ideal approach must fullyappreciate the complex intricacies of the crea-tive process without regarding it as mysticalor spiritual behavior; creativity must be re-searchable. However, the goal of the idealapproach would not he merely the identifica-tion and measurement of complex personalitydimensions and cognitive processes underlyingcreative behavior. Attention also must begiven to learnable procedures which enhancecreative expression in both simple laboratoryand complex educational and industrial situa-tions.

By studying personality, the creative pro-cess is considerably clarified. Furthermore,by systematically manipulating learning vari-ables and creative idea-facilitative operations,the rigor of experimental psychological meth-odology may also be invoked. A promisingnew research trend will combine the study ofpersonality processes, the rigor of experimentalpsychology, and the learnable procedures andprograms systematically effecting creative ex-pression.

In sum, creativity, in and out of the scien-tific community, has unlimited potential forgrowth as an area of researchable human be-havior. Potential applications of creativethinking programs, hooks, and learnable tech-niques cannot exhaust even the wildest imag-ination. Surprisingly enough, the extent ofresearch (but not theory) to date is immensebut not complete, particularly in regard to thepreviously mentioned difficulties. Again, nofully matured and comprehensive theoreticalstatement is available. The present state ofthe art is a mixture of some models, limitedapplications, operational and non-operationaldefinitions, random speculation, and somehypothesis-testing. Nonetheless, creativityis coming of age.

15

REFERENCES

Adamson, R. E. Functional fixedness as re-lated to problem-solving: A repetition ofthree experiments. journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 1952, 44, 288-291.

Adamson, R. E., & Taylor, D. W. Functionalfixedness as related to elapsed time and toset. Journal of Experimental Psychology,1954, 47, 122-126.

Alexander, T. Synectic-: Inventing by themadness method. Fortune, August, 1965,p. 165.

Allen, M. S. Morphological creativity: Themiracle of your hidden brain power. Engle-wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

Allen, M. S. Psycho-dynamic synthesis: Thekey to total mind power. West Nyack, NewYork: Parker Publishing, 1966.

Anderson, R. C., & Anderson, R. M. Transferof originality training. journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 1963, 54, 300-304.

Andrews, F. M. Factors affecting the mani-festation of creative ability by scientists.Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 140-152.

Arici, H. Brainstorming as a way of facilitat-ing creative thinking. Unpublished Ph.D.thesis, University of Illinois, 1965.

Arnold, J. E. Useful creative techniques.Creative Engineering Seminar, StanfordUniversity, 1959.

Baldwin, A. L. Theories of child development.New York: Wiley, 1967.

Barron, F. The psychology of imagination. InParnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F. (Eds.),A source book for creative thinking, NewYork: Scribner's, 1962. Pp. 227-237.

Barron, F. Creative person and creative pro-cess. New York: Holt, Rinehart, andWinston, 1969.

Birch, H. G., & Rabinowitz, H. S. The nega-tive effect of previous experience on pro-ductive thinking. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 1951, 41, 1 21-1 25.

Bloom, S. S. Studies of creative versus non-creative individuals: University of Chicago.

Report of Research Conference on the Iden-tification of Creative Science Talent, Uni-versity of Utah, 1955, 183-184.

Bowers, P. G.' Effect of hypnosis and sugges-tions of reduced defensiveness on creativitytest performance. Dissertation Abstracts,1965, 26, 2864-2865.

Brill, A. A. (Ed.) The basic writings ofSigmund Freud, New York: Modern Library,1938.

Britt, M. F. An explor )tL,ry study of a colorassociation exercise :or the assessment ofverbal creative ability. Richardson Founda-tion, Greensboro, North Carolina, Creativ-ity Research Institute, 1967, 45 p.

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A.A study of thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.

Buhl, B. R. Engineering creativity; qualitiesof the creative engineering student. Depart-ment of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa StateCollege, 1958.

Cartledge, C. J., & Krauser, E. L. Trainingfirst-grade children in creative thinkingunder quantitative and qualitative motiva-tion. Journal of Ed tcational Psychology,1963, 54, 295-299.

Cattell, R. B., & Drevdahl, J. E. A compari-son of the personality profile (16 P.F.) ofeminent researchers with that of eminentteachers and administrators, and the gen-eral population. British Journal of Psychol-ogy, 1955, 46, 248-261.

Cleeton, G. U. Originality: A summary ofexperimental literature. Journal of Ab-normal and Social Psychology, 1926, 21,304-315.

Cohen, D., WhiLtayre, I. W., & Funk, W. H.Effect of group cohesiveness and trainingupon creative thinking. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1960, 44, 319-322.

Coop, R. H. Learning and cogniVve style:Past, present, and future. Paper presentedat American Educational Research Associa-tion, Los Angeles, February, 1969.

fr/.7

Covington, M. V., Crutchfield, R. S., &Davies, L. B. The productive thinkingprogram. Berkeley: Braze lton, 1966.

Crawford, R. P. How to get ideas. Lincoln,Nebraska: University Associates, 1948.

Crawford, R. P. The techniques of creativethinking: How to use your ideas to achievesuccess. New York: Hawthorne Books,1954.

Crop ley, A. J. Creativity and intelligence.British Journal of Educational Psychology,1966, 36, 259-266.

Davis, G. A. Training creativity in adoles-cence: A discussion of strategy. Journalof Creative Behavior, 1969, 3, 95-104,

Davis, G. A., & Houtman, S. E. ThinkingCreatively: A guide to training imagination.Wisconsin Research and Development Center,University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wiscon-sin, 1968.

Davis, G. A., Houtman, S. E., Warren, T. F.,& Roweton, W. E. A program for trainingcreative thinking: I. Preliminary field test.Technical Report, Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center, University of Wiscon-sin, Madison, Wisconsin, 9E9, No. 104.

Davis, G. A., & Manske, M. E. An instruc-tional method of increasing originality.Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6, 73-74.

Davis, G. A., Manske, M. E., & Train, A. J.Training creative thinking. Occasionalpaper from the Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center, University of Wis-consin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1967, No. 6

Davis, G. A., & Roweton, W. E. Using ideachecklists with college students: Overcom-ing resistance. journal of Psychology,1968, 70, 221-226.

Davis, G. A., Roweton, W. E., Train, A. J.,Warren, T. F., & Houtman, S. E. Labora-tory studies of creative thinking techniques:The checklist and morphological synthesismethods. Technical Report from WisconsinResearch and Development Center, Universityof Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1969, No. 94

Dent ler, R. A., & Mack ler, B. Originality:Some social and personal determinants.Behavioral Science, 1964, 9, 1-7.

Drevdahl, J. E. Factors of importance forcreativity. Journal of Clinical Psychology,1556, 12, 21-26.

Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J., & Jaastad, K.The effect of group participation on brain-storming effectiveness of two industrialsamples. Journal of Applied Psychology,1963, 47, 30-47.

Edwards, M. 0. A survey of problemsolvingcourses. journal of Creative Behavior,1967, 2, 33-51.

18

Fisichelli, V. R., & Welch, L. The ability ofcollege art majors to recombine ideas increative thinking. journal of Applied Psy-chology, 1947, 31, 278.

Fleischer, G. The effects of anxiety upontests of creativity. Dissertation Abstracts,1965, 25, 5372-5373.

Freedman, J. L. Increasing creativity by free-association training. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 1965, 69, 89-91.

Gallup, H. F. Originality in free and controlledassociative responses. Psychological Re-ports, 1963, 13, 923-929.

Garwood, D. S. Personality factors related tocreativity in young scientists. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 1964; 68,413-419.

Gerlach, V. S., Schutz, R. E., Baker, R. L.,& Mazier, G. E. Effects of variations intest directions on originality test responses.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964,55, 79-83.

Getz.ils, J. W. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. Cre-ative thinking in art studentsan explora-tory study. University of Chicago, reportNo. CRP-E-008, 1964.

Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. W. The mean-ing of "giftedness"an examination of anexpanding concept. Phi Delta Kappan,1958, 40, 75-77.

Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. W. Familyenvircnment and cognitive style: A studyof the sources of highly intelligent andhighly creative adolescents. AmericanSociological Review, 1961, 26, 351-359 (a)

Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. W. Varietiesof giftedness in the classroomstudies ofcognitive and psycho-sociological func-tioning in adolescents. University of Chi-cago, report No. CRP-098, 1961. (b)

Getzels, J. W. & rckson, P. W. Creativityand intelligenc_:. New York: Wiley, 1962.

Getzels, J. W., Jackson, P. W., & Burt, C.Psychology of creative ability: Review ofcreativity and intelligence. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 1962, 32, 292-298.

Golann, S. E. Psychological study of creativity.Psychological Bulletin, 1963, 60, 548-565.

Gordon, W. J. J. Operational approach to cre-ativity. Harvard Business Review, 1956,34, 41-51.

Gordon, W. J. J. Synectics: The developmentof creative capacity. New York: Harper andRow, 1961.

Gough, H. G. Imaginationundeveloped re-source. Proceedings of the First Confer-ence on Research Developments in PersonnelManagement, University of California Insti-tute of Industrial Relations, 1957.

GPO 817-31 P-4

Gowan, J. C., Demos, G. D., & Torrance,E. P. (Eds.) Creativity: Its educationalimplications. New York: Wiley, 1967.

Graves, G. 0., Ingersoll, R. W., & Evans,L. R. The creative medical student: Adescriptive study. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 1967, 1, 371-382.

Green, L. A. A study of creativity and theself-attitudes and sociability of high schoolstudents. Dissertation Abstracts, 1957,27, 1807-1808.

Guilford, J. P. Creativity. American Psy-chologist, 1950, 5, 444-454.

Guilford, J. P. Creative abilities in the arts.Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 110-118.

Guilford, J. P. Creativity: Its measurementdevelopment. In Parnes, S. J., & Harding,H. F. (Eds.), A source book for creativethinking, New York: Scribner's, 1962.Pp. 151-168.

Guilford, J. P. Basic problems in teaching ofcreativity. In Taylor, C. W., & Williams,F. E. (Eds.), Instructional media and cre-ativity, New York: Wiley, 1966. Pp. 71-103.

Guilford, J. P. Creativity: Yesterday, today,and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behavior,1967, 1, 3-14.

Hadley, D. J. Experimental relationships be-tween creativity and anxiety. DissertationAbstracts, 1965, 26, 2586.

Hahn, M. Review of research on creativity.Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1968.

Hake, D. Preference for incongruity and themotivation for creative performance. Un-poblished master's thesis, University ofWisconsin, 1967.

Hansbrook, E. The conditions of creativework. Progressive Education, December,1931, 648-655.

Hansen, H. L. The course in creative market-ing strategy at Harvard Business School.In Parnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F. (Eds.),A source book fc- creative thinking, NewYork: Scribner's, 1962. Pp. 325-331.

Harms, E. A test for types of formal creativity.Psychological Bulletin, 1939, 36, 526-527.

Harris, R. H. The development and validationof a test of creative ability. Doctoral Dis-sertation Series, no. 13927, Universitymicrofilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1955.

Hartman, G. W. The concept and criteria ofinsight. Psychological Review, May, 1931,243-253.

Higgins, J. A further study of correlates ofthe Remote Associates Test of Creativity.Psychology, 1966, 3, 18-20.

Hirsch, C. The cognitive functioning of thecreative person: A developmental analysis

by means of the Rorschach test. Disserta-tions Abstracts, 1958, 18, 296-297.

Hitt, W. D., & Stock, J. R. The relationbetween psychological characteristics andcreative behavior. Psychological Record,1965, 15, 133-140.

Houston, J. P., & Mednick, S. A. Creativityand the need for ..ovelty. Journal of Ab-normal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66,137-141.

Hutchinson, E. D. Materials for the study ofcreative thinking. Psychological Bulletin,1931, 28, 292 -310.

Hyman, R. On prior information and creativity.Psychological Reports, 1961, 9, 151 -161.

Jacobs, J. F. Bilingualism and creativity.Elementary Education, 1966, 43, 499-503.

Jastrow, J. The psychology of invention.Psychological Review, 1898, 5, 307-309.

Johnson, D. M., & Zerbolio, D. 5. Relationsbetween production and judgment of plot-titles . American Journal of Psychology,1964, 77, 99-105.

Jung, C. G. The relations between the egoand the unconscious. In Read, H. (Ed.),Collected works, New York: Pantheon,1953. Pp. 119-239 I(Vol. 7).

Kagan, J. Personality and the learning pro-cess. Daedalus, Summer, 1965, 553-563.

Kagan, 5., Moss, H. A., & Sigel, I. E.Psychological significance of styles ofconceptualization. The Monograph of theSociety for Research in Child Development,1963, 28, 73-112.

Knapp, R. H. Demographic, cultural, andpersonality attributes of scientists. InTaylor, C. W. (Ed.), Research Confer-ence on the Identification of CreativeScientific Talent, Salt Lake City: Uni-versity of Utah Press, 1956. Pp. 204 -212.

Knapp, R. H., & Goodrich, H. B. Origins ofAmerican scientists. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1952.

Kris, E. Psychoanalytic explorations in art.New York: International Universities Press,1952.

Kuo, Y. Creative thinking: Delinquent vs.non-delinquent boys. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 1967, 1, 411-418.

Lincoln, J. W. Developing a creativeness inpeople. In Parnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F.(lids.), A source book for creative thinking,New York: Scribner's, 1962. Pp. 269-275.

Lindgren, H. C., & Lindgren, F. Brainstormingand orneriness as facilitators of creativity.Psychological Reports, 1965, 16, 577-583. (a)

Lindgren, H. C., & Lindgren, F. Creativity,brainstorming, orneriness: A cross-culturalstudy. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965,67, 23-30. (b)

19

Lowenfield, V., & Beittel, K. Interdiscipli-nary criteria of creativity in the arts andsciences: A progress report. ResearchYearbook of the National Art EducationAssociation, 1959, 35-44.

Luchins, A. S. Mechanization in problem-solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psy-chological Monographs, 1942, 54, (6,Whole No.248).

MacKinnon, D. W. Fostering creativity instudits of engineering. Journal of En-gineering Education, 1961, 52, 129-142.

MacKinnon, D. W. The personality corre-lates of creativity: A study of Americanarchitects. In Nielson, G. S. (Ed.), Pro-ceedings of the XIV International Congressof Applied Psychology, Copenhagen, 1961,Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1962. Pp. 11-39 (Vol. 2).

MacKinnon, D. W. Personality and the reali-zation of creative potential.. American Psy-chologist, 1965, 20 273-281.

MacKinnon, D. W. Assessing creative per-sons. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1967,1, 291-304.

Mack ler, B. Creativity and life style. Dis-sertation Abstracts, 1964, 24, 5571.

Mack ler, B., & Shontz, F. C. Life stylesand creativity: A review. Journal of Psy-chology, 1964, 58, 205-214.

Mack ler, B. , & Shontz, F. C. Life stylesand creativity: An empirical investigationPerceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 20,873-896.

Maddi, S. R., Char lens, A. M., Maddi, D. A.,& Smith, A. J. Effects of monotony andnovelty on imaginative productions. journal.of Personality, 1962, 30, 513-527.

Maier, N. R. F. Reasoning in humans: PartI. On direction. Journal of Comparativeand Physiological Psychology, 1930, 10,115-144.

Maier, N. R. F. Reasoning in humans: Thesolution of a problem and its appearancein consciousness. Journal of Comparativeand Physiological Psychology, 1931, 11,181-194.

Maier, N. R. F., & Hoffman, L. R. Qualityof first and second solutions in groupproblem-solving. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 1960, 44, 278-283.

Maier, N. R. F., & Hoffman, L. R. Organiza-tion and creative problem-solving. Journalof Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 277-280.

Maier, N. R., & Hoffman, R. L. Acceptanceand quality of solutions as related toleader's attitude toward disagreement ingroup problem solving. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 1965, 1., 373-386.

20

Maier, N. R. F., & Solem, A. R. Improvingsolutions by turning choice situations intoproblems. PerEmnel Psychology, 1962, 15,151-157.

Maltzman, I. On the training of originality.Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 229-242.

Maltzman, I., Belloni, M., & Fishbein, M.Experimental studies of associative vari-ables in originality. Psychological Mono-graph: General and Applied, 1964, 78, (3,Whole no. 580), 21 p.

Maltzman, I., Bogartz, W., & Breger, L. Aprocedure for increasing word associationoriginality and its transfer effects. Journalof Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 392-398.

Maltzman, I., Bogartz, W., & Simon, S. Ef-fects of different training methods on freeassociation, originality, and unusual uses.Technical Report I, University of California,Department of Psychology, 1959.

Maltzman, I., Brooks, L. 0., Bogartz, W., &Summers, S. The facilitation of problem-solving by prior exposure to uncommon re-sponses. Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy, 1958, 56, 399-406.

Maltzman, I., & Gallup, E. F. Comments on"originality" in tree and controlled associa-tive responses. Psychological Reports,1964, 14, 573-1;74.

Maltzman, I., Raskin, D., & Simon, S. A

further study of methods of training freeassociation, originality, and unusual uses.Technical Report II, University of California,Departn ent of Psychology, 1959.

1VIaltzman, I., Simon, S., & Licht, L. Thepersistence of originality training effects.Technical Report IV, University of California,Department of Psychology, 1959.

Maltzman, I., Simon, S., Raskin, D., &Licht, L. Effects of different amounts oftraining on originality. Technical ReportIII, University of California, Departmentof Psychology, 1959.

Mandell, M. M. Measuring originality in thephysical sciences. Educational and Psy-chological Measurement, 1950, 10, 380-385.

Manske, M. E., & Davis, G. A. Effects ofsimple instructional biases upon perform-ance in the unusual uses test. Journal ofGeneral Psychology, 1968, 79, 25-33.

Marzill, R. E. Information-gathering patternsand creativity: A study of research chem-ists in an industrial research laboratory.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. ColumbiaUniversity School of Library Science, 1957.

Maslow, A. H. Emotional blocks to creativity.Humanist, 1958, 18, 325-332.

Maslow, A. H. Some educational implicationsof the humanistic psychologies. HarvardEducational Review, Fail, 1968, 685-696.

Mathews, J. The psychology of creativethinking groups. Creative Retailing Insti-tute, University of Pittsburgh, 1956.

Meadow, A., & Parries, S. J. Evaluation oftraining in creative problem-solving.Lurnal of Applied Psychology, 1959, 63,189-194.

Meadow, A., Parnes, S. J., & Reese, H.Influence of brair storming instructions andproblem sequence on a creative problem-solving test. Journal of Applied Psychology,1959, 43, 413-416.

Mednick, S. A. The associative basis of thecreative process. Psychological Reriew,1962, 69, 220-232.

Mednick, M. T., & Andrews, F. M. Crea-tive thinking and level of intelligence.Journal of Creative Behavior, 1967, 1,428-431.

Mednick, M. T., Mednick, S. A., & Mednick,E. V. Incubc.don of creative performanceand specific associative priming. Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964,69, 84-88.

Meir, B., & Stein, M. L. Measures of intelli-gence and creativity. Journal of Psychology,1955, 49, 117-126.

Mendelsohn, G. A., & Griswald, B. B. Dif-ferential use of incidental stimuli in prob-lem solving as a function of creativity.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1964, 68, 431-436.

Meyer, P. A study of the production of crea-tive ideas. American Psychologist, 1953,8, 404.

Mooney, R. L. A conceptual model for inte-grating four approaches to the identificationof creative talent. Research Conference onthe Identification of Creative-ScientificTalent, University of Utah, 1957.

Moore, R. The relationship of intelligence tocreativity. Journal of Research in MusicEducation, 1966, 14, 243-253.

Myden, W. D. An interpretation and evalua-tion of certain personality characteristicsinvolved in creative production: An investi-gation and evaluation of personality struc-ture and characteristics of creative indi-viduals in the context of psychoanalytictheory and ego psychology. DissertationAbstracts, 1957, 17, 897-898.

Myden, W. Interpretation and evaluation ofcertain personality characteristics involvedin creative production. Perceptual andMotor Skills, 1959, 9, 139-158.

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Invitationsto thinking and doing. Boston: Ginn, 1964.

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Invitationsto speaking and writing creatively. Boston:Ginn, 1965. (a)

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Can youimagine. Boston: Ginn, 1965. (b)

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Plots, puz-zles, and ploys. Boston: Ginn, 1966. (a)

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. For thosewho wonder. Boston: Ginn, 1966. (b)

McCelland, D. C. On the psychodynamics ofcreative physical scientists. In Gruber,H. E., Terrell, G., & Wertheimer, M. (Eds.),Contemporary approaches to creative thinkina,New York: Atherton, 1967. Pp. 141-174.

McNemar, Q. Lost: Our intelligence. Why?American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 871-882.

McPherson, J. H. The people, the problemsand the problem solving methods. Journalof Creative Behavior, 1968, 2, 103-110.

Nydes, J. Creativity and psychotherapy. Psy-choanalytic Review, 1962, 49, 29-33.

Osborn, A. F. Your creative power. New York:Scribner's, 1948.

Osborn, A. F. Applied imagination. New York:Scribner's, 1963.

Parnes, S. J. Effects of extended effort in cre-ative problem-solving. Journal of EducationalPsychology, '1961, 52, 117-122.

Parnes, S. J. Can creativity be increased? InParnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F. (Eds.),A source book for creative thinking, NewYork: Scribner's, 1962. Pp. 185-191.

Parries, S. J. Education and creativity.Teachers College Record, 1963, 64, 331-339. (a)

Parries, S. J. The deferment of judgment prin-ciple: A clarification of the literature. Psy-chological Reports, 1963, 12, 521-522 (b)

Parnes, S. J. Creative behavior workbook.New York: Scribner's, 1967. (a)

Fames, S. J. Creative behavior guidebook.New York: Scribner's, 1967. (b)

Parnes, S. J. Programming creative behavior.No. 015677, ERIC Document ReproductionService, 4936 Fairmont Avenue, Bethesda,Maryland, 20014, 1968.

Parnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F. (Eds.) Asource book for creative thinking. NewYork: Scribner's, 1962.

Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. Effects of brain-storming instructions on creative problem-solving by trained and untrained subjects.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959,50, 171-176.

Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. Evaluation ofpersistance of effects produced by a crea-tive problem-solving course. PsychologicalReports, 1960, 7, 357-361.

Pogue, B. C. A study to determine whether ornot there is a relationship between creativity

21

and self-image. Unpublished Ed.D. thesis,Ball State University, 1964.

Prince, G. M. The operational mechanism ofsynectics. journal of Creative Behavior,1968, 2, 1-13.

Racusen, F. R. An exploratory investigationof the creativity and productivity variableson the Rorschach and Thematic AppreciationTests. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Uni-versity of Iowa, 1952.

Rees. M. E., & Goldman, M. Some relationsbetween creativity and personality. Journalof General Psychology, 1961, 65, 145-161.

Ripple, R. E., & May, F. B. Caution in com-paring creativity and IQ. PsychologicalReports, 1962, 10, 229-230.

Roe, A. A psychological study of physicalscientists. Genetic Psychology Mono-graph, 1951, 43, 121-239.

Roe, A. A psychological study of iminentpsychologists and anthropologists, and acomparison with biological and physicalscientists. Psychological Monographs,1953, 67 (2) . (a)

Roe, A. The making of a scientist. Newrk: Dodd, Mead, 1953. (b)

Rogers, C. R. Toward a theory of creativity.In Parries, S. J., & Harding, H. F. (Eds.),A source book for creative thinking, NewYork: Scribner's, 1962. Pp. 63-72.

Roweton, W. E. Facilitative effects of verbalpretraining and checklist availability uponidea production. Psychonomic Science,1969, 15, 301-303.

Putherford, J. M. Personality correlates ofcreativity. Dissertation Abstracts, 1960,20, 4434.

Samstad, G. I. General Electric's creativecourses. In Parnes, S. J., & Harding,H. F. (Eds.), A source book for creativethinking, New York: Scribner's, 1962.Pp. 333-339.

Savoca, A. F. The effects of reward, race,IQ, and socioeconomic status on creativeproduction of preschool children. Disser-tation Abstracts, 1965, 26, 2327.

Schmiek, J. G. Creative originality: Itsevaluation by the use of free-expressiontests. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,University of California, 1954.

Schulman, D. Openness of perception as acondition for creativity. Exceptional Chil-dren, 1966, 33, 89-94.

Scott, N. C., Jr., & Sigel, I. E. Effects ofinquiry training in physical science oncreativity and cognitive styles of elemen-tary school children. Merrill Palmer Insti-tute, Detroit, Report No. CRP-S-160, 1965.

Sears, P. S. The study of development of cre-ativity: Research problems in parental

22

antecedents. Paper presented at the Na-tional Invitational Research Conference onChild-Rearing Practices for DevelJmentalCreativity, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1967.

Simberg, A. L., & Shannon; T. E. The effectof AC creativity training on the AC sugges-tion program. AC Spark Plug Division ofGM Corporation, March, 1959.

Simpson, R. M. Creative imagination. Ameri-can Journal of Psychology, 1922, 33, 234-243.

Spotts, J. V., & Mackler, B. Relationshipsof field-dependent and field-independentcognitive styles to creative test perform-ance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967,24, 239-268.

Sprecher, T. B. An investigation of criteriafor creativity in engineering. UnpublishedPh.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1957.

Staats, A. W. Learning, language, arid cogni-tion. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,1968.

Stein, M. I. Creativity as an intra- End inter-personal process. Journal of Psychology,1953, 36, 311-322.

Stein, M. I., & Meir, B. Perceptual organiza-tion in a study of creativity. Journal ofPsychology, 1954, 37, 39-43.

Taylor, C. W. A tentative description of thecreative individual. Paper presented atFifth ASCD Research Institute (Eastern Sec-tion), Washington, D. C., 1959.

Taylor, C. W. (Ed.). Creativity: Progress andpotential. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. N.Does group participation when using brain-storming facilitate or inhibit creative think-ing? Administrative Science Quarterly,1958, 3, 23-47.

Teevan, R. C. Personality correlates of under-graduate field of specializatipn. Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 1954, 18, 212 -218.

Terman, L. M. Scientists and non-scientistsin a group of 800 gifted men. PsychologicalMonograph, 1954, 68, 44 p.

Thorndike, R. L. The measurement of creativity.Teachers College Record, 1963, 64, 422-424. (a)

Thorndike, R. L. Some methodological issuesin the study of creativity. Proceedings ofthe 1962 Invitational Conference on TestingProblems, Princeton: Educational TestingService, 1963. Pp. 40-54. (b)

Thurstone, L. L. The scientific study of in-ventive talent. The Nature of CreativeThinking, Monograph of New Yol-k University,1952.

Torrance, E. P. Developing creative thinkingthrough school experiences. Paper presentedat Minneapolis Teachers League, May 20, 1959.

Torrance, E. P. Scientific views of creativityand factors affecting its growth. Daedalus,Summer, 1965, 663-681.

Torrance, E. P. Examples and rationales oftest tasks for assessing creative abilities.Journal of Creative Behavior, 1968, 2, 165-178. (a)

Torrance, E. P. Torrance tests of creativethinking. Boston: Ginn, 1968. (b)

Train, A. J. Attribute listing and the use ofa checklist: A comparison of two tech-niques for stimulating creative thinking.Unpublished master's thesis, Universityof Wisconsin, 1967.

True, G. H. Creativity as a function of ideafluency, practicability, and specific train-ing. Dissertation Abstracts, 1957, 17,401-402.

Turner, W. M., & Rains, J. D. Differentialeffects of "brainstorming" instructionsupon high and low creative subjects. Psy-chological Reports, 1965, 17, 753-754.

Unger, S. M., Caron, A. J., & Parloff, M. B.A test of Maltzman's theory of originalitytraining. Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behavior, 1963, 1, 436-442.

Upton, A., & Samson, R. W. Creative Analy-sis. New York: Dutton, 1963.

VanZelst, R. H., & Kerr, W. A. Some correla-tions of technical and scientific productivity.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1951, 66, 470-475.

VanZelst, R. H., & Kerr, W. A. A furthernote on some correlations of technicaland scientific productivity. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psycholocy, 1952,67, 129.

Vernon, P. C. Creativity and intelligence.Educational Research, 1964, 6, 163 -169.

Wade, S. Differences between intelligenceand creativity: Some speculations on therole of environment. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 1968, 2, 97-101.

Walker, P. E. Consistant characteristics inthe behavior of creative mathematiciansand chemists. American Psychologists,1952, 7, 371.

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. Modes ofthinking in young children. New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965. (a)

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. Cognitiveoriginality, physiognomic sensitivity, anddefensiveness in children. Duke University,Report No. CRP-1316-B, 1965. (b)

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. Creativity andintelligence in children. Trans-action,1967, 20-22.

Wallas, G. The art of thought. New York:Harcourt, Brace, 1926.

Wallen, N. E. Creativityfantasy and fact.Elementary School Journal, 1964, 64, 438-443.

Warren, T. F., & Davis, G. A. Techniquesfor creative thinking: An empirical compari-son of three methods. Psychological Re-ports, 1969, 25, 207-214.

Welch, L. Recombination of ideas in creativethinking. Journal of Applied Psychology,1946, 30, 638-643.

Whelan, K. J. A study of industrial, analyti-cal, and creative personnel. Unpublishedmaster's thesis, Western Reserve Univer-sity, 1959.

Williams, F. E. Intelligence, creativity, andthe teacher. journal of Creative Behavior,1967, 1, 173-180.

Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen,P. R. The measurement of individual differ-ences in originality. Psychological Bulle-tin, 1953, 50, 362 -370.

Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen,P. R. A factor-analytic study of creativethinking abilities. Psychometricka, 1954,19, 297-311.

You and creativity. Kaiser Aluminum News,1968, 25, 3-39.

23

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES'

Abelson, P. H. Relation of group activity tocreativity in science. Daedalus, Summer,1965, 603-614.

Alamshah, W. H. The conditions for creativ-ity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1967,1, 305-313.

Anderson, H. H. (Ed.) Creativity in child-hood and adolescence: A diversity of ap-proaches. Palo Alto: Science and Behav-ior Books, 1965.

Anderson, L. R., & Fielder, F. E. The effectof participatory and supervisory leadershipon group creativity. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1964, 48, 227-236,

Anderson, R. C. Can first graders learn anadvanced problem-solving skill? Journalof Educational Psychology, 1965, 56, 283-294.

Anzalone, P., & Stahl, D. Strategies forcreative thinking. Instructor, 1967, 76,15-26.

Barron, F. Some relations between originalityand style of personality. American Psychol-ogist, 1954, 9, 326.

Bates, C. 0. A study of creativity potentialas found in elementary student teachers.Unpublished Ed. D. thesis, Ball StateTeachers College, 1963.

Berlin, T. N. Aspects of creativity and thelearning process. American Image, 1960,17, 83-99.

Bloomberg, M. Toward a rapproachement andbetween field independence-dependenceand creativity. Unpublished master'sthesis, Skidmore College, 1966.

Brown, G. I. An experiment in the teachingof creativity. School Review, 1964, 72,437-450.

Brown, G. I. A second study in the teachingof creativity. Harvard Educational Review,1965, 31, 39-54.

Not cited in context.

Brown, J. D. The development of creativeteacher-scholars. Daedalus, Summer,1965, 615-631.

Brunelle, E. A. Creative intelligence andsemantics. ETC: A review of generalsemantics, 1967, 24, 203 -212.

Bruner, J. S. The conditions of creativity.In Gruber, H. E., Terrell, G., &Wertheimer, M. (Eds.), Contemporaryapproaches to creative thinking, New York:Atherton, 1964. Pp. 1-30.

Bruner, J. S. Toward a theory of instruction.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1966.

Cheong, G. Relations among experimentalattitude, creativity, school attitude, SESof fourth-sixth grade pupils. DissertationAbstracts, 1966, 26, 5286.

Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., &Wilson, R. C. Relations of creative re-sponses to working time and instructions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957,53, 82-89.

Cobb, J. The importance of creativity.Metuchen, N. J.: Scarecrow, 1967.

Creativity and intelligence. Times EducationSupplement, 10 March 1967, 2703, 809.

Crutchfield, R. S. Conformity and creativethinking. In Gruber, H. E., Terrell, G.,& Wertheimer, M. (Eds.), Contemporaryapproaches to creative thinking, New York:Atherton, 1967. Pp. 1 21-140.

Demos, G. D., & Gowan, J. C. Introduction.In Gowan, J. C., Demos, G. D., & Torrance,E. P. (Eds.), Creativity: Its educationalimplications, New York: Wiley, 1967.Pp. 1-7.

Devine, P. L. A study in supervision to pro-mote creative teaching. Dissertation Ab-stracts, 1965, 25, 6428.

Dunkel, H. B. Creativity and education.Educational Theory, 19 61, 11, 209-216.

Eiseley, L. Darwin, Coleridge, and the theoryof unconscious creation. Daedalus, Summer,1965, 588-602.

Enochs, P. D. An experimental study of amethod for developing creative thinking infifth-grade children. Dissertation Abstracts,1965, 25, 4538-4539.

Flescher, I. Anxiety and achievement of in-tellectually gifted and creatively giftedchildren. journal of Psychology, 1963, 56,251-268.

Forslund, J. E. An inquiry into the nature ofcreative teaching. Journal of Education,1961, 143, 72-82.

Franklin, A. (Chr.) Henry, J., at al. Theteacher's role in creativity. Symposium,1958. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,1959, 29, 266-297.

Gibbons, D. Set-breaking as a learned re-sponse. Psychological Reports, 1965, 17,203-208.

Gotkin, L. G., & Massa, N. Programmedinstruction and the academically gifted:The effects of creativity and teacher be-havior on programmed instruction withyoung learners. New York: Center forProgrammed Instruction, 1963.

Gowan, J. C. What makes a gifted childcreative?four theories. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 1965, 9, 3-6.

Gowan, J. C. Some newer theoretical impli-cations for creative learning. In Gowan,J. C., Demos, G. D., & Torrance, E. P.(Eds.), Creativity: Its educational impli-cations, New York: Wiley, 1967. Pp. 79-83.

Gowan, J. C., & Torrance, E. P. An inter-cultural study of non-verbal ideationalfluency. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1965,9, 13-15.

Hallman, R. J. Techniques of creative teach-ing. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1967,1, 325-330. (a)

Hallman, R. J. The necessary and sufficientconditions of creativity. In Gowan, J. C.,Demos, G. D., & Torrance, E. P. (Eds.),Creativity: Its eaucational implications,New York: Wiley, 1967. Pp. 16-31. (b)

Harding, H. F. The need for a more creatiNietrend in American education. In Parnes,S. J., & Harding, H. F. (Eds.), A sourcebook for creative thinking, New York:Scribner's, 1962. Pp. 3-8.

Harlow, H. F., Miller, J. G., & Newcomb,T. M. Identifying creative talent in psy-chology. American Psychologist, 1962, 17,679-683.

Henle, M. The birth and death of ideas. InGruber, H. E., Terrell, G., & Wertheimer,M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches tocreative thinking, New York: Atherton,1967. Pp. 31-62.

26

Hilgard, E. R. Creativity and problem-solvingIn Anderson, H. H. (Ed.), Creativity andits cultivation. New York: Harper, 1959.Pp. 162-180.

Hilgard, E. R. Introduction to psychology_(3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace,and World, 1962. Pp. 359-365.

Hitt, W. D. Toward a two factor-theory ofcreativity. Psychological Record, 1965,15, 127-132.

Hoffman, L. R. Conditions for creativeproblem-solving. Journal of Psychology,1961, 52, 429-444.

Holland, J. L. Creative and academic per-formance among talented adolescents.journal of Educational Psychology, 1961,S2, 136-147.

Hutchinson, W. L. Creative and productivethinking in the classroom. UnpublishedPh.D. thesis, University of Utah, 1963.

Hutchinson, W. L. Creative and productivethinking in the classroom. Journal of Cre-ative Behavior, 1967, 1, 419-427.

James, G. R. The relationship of teachercharacteristics and pupil creativity. Dis-sertation Abstracts, 1965, 25, 4544.

Kagan, J. Creativity and learning. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin, 1967.

Lieberman, J. N. A developmental analysisof playfulness as a clue to cognitive style.journal of Creative Behavior, 1967, 1,391-397.

Littman, M. An experimental investigation ofthe effect of method of presentation uponthe imaginative quality of descriptive writ-ing among elementary-school children.Journal of Experimental Education, 1935,4, 44-49.

Lowenfeld, V. Creativity: Education's step-child. In Parnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F.(Eds.), A source book for creative thinking,New York: Scribner;s, 1962. Pp. 9-17.

MacDonald, J. B., & Raths, J. D. Should wegroup by creative abilities? ElementarySchool Journal, 1964, 65, 137-142.

Madder, B., & Shontz, F. C. Characteristicsof responses to tests of creativity. Journalof Clinical Psychology, 1967, 23, 73-80.

MacLeod, R. B. Retrospect and prospect. InGruber, H. E., Terrell, G., & Wertheimer,M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches tocreative thinking, New York: Atherton,1967. Pp. 175-212.

Markey, F. V. Imagination. PsychologicalBulletin, March, 1935, 212 -236.

Mason, J. G. How to be a more creativeexecutive. New York: McGraw Hill, 1960.

Mead, M. Creativity in cross-cultural per-spective. In Anderson, H. H. (Ed.),

GPO 017-319-3

Creativity and its cultivation, New York:Harper, 1959, Pp. 222-235.

Moore, L. B. Creative actionthe evalua-tion, development, and use of ideas. InParnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F. (Eds.),A source book for creative thinking, NewYork: Scribner's, 1962. Pp. 297-304.

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Can teachersencourage creative thinking? EducationalLeadership, 1961, 19, 156-159.

McConnell, T. R. Discovery vs. authorita-tive identification in the learning of chil-dren. University of Iowa Studies in Educa-tion, 1934, 9, 13-62.

McElvain, J. L., Fretwell, L. N., & Lewis,R. B. Relationship between creativity andteacher variability. Psychological Reports,1963, 13, 186.

Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. Theprocess of creative thinking. In Gruber,H. E., Terrell, G., & Wertheimer, M.(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to crea-tive thinking, New York: Atherton, 1967.Pp. 63-119.

Nicholson, P. J. An experimental investiga-tion of the effects of training upon creativ-ity. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Universityof Houston, 1959.

Olshin, G. M. The relationship among selected subject variables and level of cre-ativity. Unpublished Ed. D. thesis, Uni-versity of Georgia, 1963.

Osborn, A. F. Developments in creative edu-cation. In Parnes, S. J., & Harding, H. F.(Eds.), A source book for creative thinking,New York: Scribner's, 1962. Pp. 19-29.

Parnes, S. J., & Brunelle, E. A. The litera-ture of creativity (Part 1). Journal of Cre-ative Behavior, 1967, 1, 52-57.

Piers, E. V., Daniels, J. M., & Quackenbush,J. F. The identification of creativity inadolescents. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 1960, 51, 346-351.

Ray, W. S. The experimental psychology oforiginal thinking. New York: Macmillan,1967.

Reyburn, N. J. Development of divergentthinking through oral and written languageinstruction. Dissertation Abstracts, 1964,24, 5095-5096.

Rookwell, J. G. Genius and the IQ. Psycho-logical Review, 1927, 34, 377-384.

Rosenbaum, M. E., Arenson, S. J., & Penman,R. A. Training and instructions in the facil-itation of originality. Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3, 50-56.

Rusch, R. R., Denny, D. A., & Ives, S. Foster-ing creativity in the sixth grade. ElementarySchool Journal, 1965, 65, 262-268.

Sanford, N. The human problems institute andgeneral education. Daedalus, Summer,1965, 642-662.

Shallcross, D. J. Creative problem solvingcourse. NEA Journal, 1967, 56, 57.

Smith, E. E., (Sc Kight, S. S. Effects of feed-back on insight and problem-soiVing effi-ciency in training groups. journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 1959, 43, 209-211.

Spector, N. Factorial dimensions of creativity.Unpublished Ed. D. thesis, University ofTexas, 1963.

Stephenson, R. W., & Treadwell, Y. Per-sonality variables related to the effective-ness of a creativity training program.Journal. of Experimental Education, 1967,35, 64-75.

Stevens, J. C. Student creativity, intelli-gence, achievement, and teacher class-room behavior. Paper presented at Ameri-can Educational Research Association,New York, 1967.

Stolurow, L. M. Social impact of programmedinstruction: Application and abilities re-visited. Paper presented at American Psy-chological Association Annual Convention,St. Louis, 1962.

Suchman, J. R. Creative thinking and con-ceptual growth. Gifted Child Quarterly,1962, 6, 95-99.

Suedfeld, P., & Vernon, J. Stress and verbaloriginality in sensory deprivation. Psy-chological Record, 1965, 15, 567-570.

Sullivan, A. J. Right to fail: Creativity vs.conservatism. Journal of Higher Educa-tion, 1963, 34, 191-195.

Summerfield, G. (Ed.). Creativity in English:Papers relating to the Anyo-American sem-inar on the teaching of English. (DartmouthCollege, New Hampshire, 1966.) TheDartmouth Seminar Papers, National Coun-cil of Teachers of English, Champaign,Illinois, 61820 (Stock no. 01214).

Taylor, C. W. Questioning and creating:A modal for curriculum reform. Journal ofCreative Behavior, 1967, 1, 22-33.

Taylor, D. U. Does group participation whenusing brainstorming facilitate or inhibitcreative thinking? Travail Humain, 1961,24, 1-20.

Taylor, R. E., (Sc Eiseman, R. Perception andproduction of complexity by creative artstudents. Journal of Psychology, 1964,57, 239-242.

Torrance, E. P. Explorations in creative think-ing. Education, 1960, 81, 235-220.

Torrance, E. P. Factors affecting creativethinking in children: An interim report.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1961, 7, 171-180.

27

Torrance, E. P. Guiding creative talent.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

Torrance, E. P. Essay review: "Creativityand intelligence." School Review, 1963,71, 112-115. (a)

Torrance, E. P. Education and the creativepotential. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1963. (b)

Torrance, E. P. Toward the more humane edu-cation of gifted children. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 1963, 7, 135-145. (c)

Torrance, E. P. The Minnesota studies ofcreative behavior: National and interna-tional extensions. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 1967, 1, 137-154. (a)

Torrance, E. P. Epilogue: Creativity inAmerican education. In Gowan, J. C.,Demos, G. D., & Torrance, E. P. (Eds.),Creativity: Its educational implications,New York: Wiley, 1967. Pp. 319-332. (b)

Tumin, M. Obstacles to creativity. ETC: Areview of general semantics, 1954, 11,26' -271.

Turner, R. L., & Denny, D. Teacher charac-teristics, classroom behavior, and growthin pupil creativity. Paper presented at theAmerican Educational Research Association,New York, 1967.

Wagner, A. B. Education for organizationalproblem solving by group methods. Disser-tation Abstracts, 1966, 26., 4107.

Ware, W. C. Creativity in young chil-dren. Child Development, 1968, 39,737-754. (a)

Ward, W. C. Reflection-impulsivity in kin-dergarten children. Child Development,1968, 39, 867-874. (b)

28

Weisskopf-Joelson, E., & Elisio, T. S. Anexperimental study of the effectiveness ofbrainstorming. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 1961, 45, 45-49.

Wertheimer, M. Productive thinking. NewYork: Harper, 1945.

Wiesner, J. B. Education for creativity in thesciences. Daedalus, Summer, 1965, 527-537.

Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M.,Machover, K., Meissner, P. B., & Wapner,S. Personality through perception. NewYork: Harper, 1954.

Witty, P. The use of films in stimulatingcreative expression and in identifyingtalented pupils. Elementary English, 1956,33, 340-344.

WoOtke, K. H., & Wailen, N. E. The effectsof teacher control in the classroom on pu-pils' creativity-test gains. American Edu-cational Research Journal, 1965, 2, 75-82.

Yamamoto, K. Does teacher creativity makea difference in pupil learning ? ElementarySchool Journal, 1967, 67, 265-270.

Yee, G. F. The influences of problem-solvinginstruction and personal-social adjustmentupon creativity test scores of twelfth gradestudents. Unpublished Ed .p . thesis,Pennsylvania State University, 1964.

Yontz, R. P. Psychological foundations ofApplied Imagination. Creative EducationFoundation, 1955.

Zagona, S. V., Willis, J. E., & MacKinnon,W. J. Group effectiveness in creativeproblem-solving tasks: An examination ofrelevant vafiables. Journal of Psychology,1966, 62, 111-137.

GPO 817.-319-2