This article was downloaded by: [University of California Davis]On: 26 October 2014, At: 14:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Differential Effects of Divergent Thinking, DomainKnowledge, and Interest on Creative Performance inArt and MathKyung-Nam Jeon a , Sidney M. Moon b & Brian French ca Korea University Sejong Campusb Purdue University , West Lafayettec Washington State UniversityPublished online: 02 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Kyung-Nam Jeon , Sidney M. Moon & Brian French (2011) Differential Effects of Divergent Thinking,Domain Knowledge, and Interest on Creative Performance in Art and Math, Creativity Research Journal, 23:1, 60-71, DOI:10.1080/10400419.2011.545750

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.545750

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Differential Effects of Divergent Thinking, DomainKnowledge, and Interest on Creative Performance

in Art and Math

Kyung-Nam Jeon

Korea University Sejong Campus

Sidney M. Moon

Purdue University, West Lafayette

Brian French

Washington State University

The purpose of this study was to investigate the main effects of divergent thinking,domain knowledge, and two types of interest (i.e., individual and situational interest)on creative performance in art and math, as well as moderating and mediating effectsof the two types of interest. A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses wereconducted on data collected from 221 Korean 8th graders. Both divergent thinkingand domain knowledge contributed to creative performance in art and math. However,the relative importance of these two factors was different in the two domains. In art,divergent thinking explained more of the variance in creative performance than domainknowledge did; in math, domain knowledge explained more of the variance than diver-gent thinking. Individual interest had no statistically significant main effect either in artor math. Situational interest had a statistically significant main effect on creative per-formance in math, but not in art. None of the hypothesized moderating and mediatingeffects of the two types of interest was statistically significant. The theoretical implica-tions of the study are discussed, especially with respect to linking the relative importanceof the variables in this study to the different domain structures of art and math.

Two contrasting positions regarding the nature ofcreativity, i.e., whether it is domain-general or domain-specific, have been empirically supported by two differ-ent lines of studies. Research providing evidence forthe domain-general view includes longitudinal studiesreporting that a considerable amount of the variance inadult creative achievements across diverse domains canbe explained by the scores on the Torrance Tests ofCreative Thinking measured in elementary school years(Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005;

Plucker, 1999; Torrance, 1981). On the other hand,research supporting the domain-specific view includescorrelational studies reporting low correlations amongdivergent thinking and expert ratings of creativeperformance in different domains (Baer, 1993, 1994;Han & Marvin, 2002).

Most studies favoring either the domain-general viewor the domain-specific view, however, have severallimitations in properly assessing the roles of diversedomain-general and specific factors in creative perform-ance. One of the limitations is related to appropriatelyevaluating the role of divergent thinking as a domain-general factor in creative performance. Divergentthinking is defined as the cognitive ability to producenumerous and diverse ideas to a given stimulus or

Correspondence should be sent to Kyung-Nam Jeon, General

Education and Teaching Profession, College of Humanities, Korea

University, Sejong Campus, Jochiwon-eup, Yeongi-gun, Chungnam

339-700, Korea. E-mail: jeonkn@korea.ac.kr

CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 23(1), 60–71, 2011

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online

DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.545750

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

problem (Runco, 1991). It has been considered one ofthe most critical domain-transcending cognitive factorsleading to creativity in many domains (Amabile, 1996;Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). Divergent thinking has beensuggested to be involved in generating as many as poss-ible responses or solutions to a given task or problem(Amabile, 1996). However, studies favoring domain-specificity have often failed to provide direct evidenceagainst the role of divergent thinking as a domain-general factor. In addition, when studies examined theeffects of divergent thinking on creative performance(Baer, 1993; Han & Marvin, 2002), they rarely con-sidered all the key dimensions of divergent thinking(i.e., fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration);instead they used only a limited number of the dimen-sions of divergent thinking (i.e., fluency and originalityonly). Furthermore, even when some studies considerseveral dimensions of divergent thinking, they investi-gated the effects of these dimensions on creativeperformance separately (i.e., investigating the relationbetween fluency and creative performance, the relationbetween originality and creative performance), not theoverall effect of these dimensions as a one unifyingconstruct of divergent thinking (e.g., investigating therelationship of a composite score of divergent thinkingto creative performance). However, the use of a singledimension of divergent thinking should be avoidedbecause the use of all the key dimensions fits betterwith the original concept of divergent thinking ability(Guilford, 1968; Torrance, 1966, 1974), and the use ofa single dimension of divergent thinking may hinder aproper evaluation of the effect of divergent thinkingon creativity (Treffinger, 1985). It should be noted thatstudies supporting the domain-general view invariablyconsidered all the key dimensions of divergent thinkingas in the form of a unifying construct or variable(Cramond et al., 2005; Plucker, 1999).

Another limitation is related to the role of domainknowledge in creative performance. Domain knowledgeis an important factor that has been suggested to bestrongly related to the domain-specific nature of creativ-ity. Domain knowledge can be generally defined as acombination of declarative and procedural knowledgein a specific domain (Amabile, 1996; Feldhusen, 2005).Creativity theorists generally agree on the significantrole of domain knowledge in creativity (Feldhusen,2005; Mayer, 2005; Weisberg, 1999). For instance,Weisberg’s (1999) foundation view implies thatdomain knowledge has a positive, linear relationshipwith creativity in a specific domain. Weisberg arguedthat the only difference between creative andnoncreative persons may be the amount of knowledgethey bring to the problem that needs creative solutions.Thus, according to foundation view, knowledge itselfcan be equated with creativity. Domain knowledge has

two critical functions in creative performance (Amabile,1996). First, domain knowledge provides informationresources from which information and response algor-ithm needed for creative performance in a given taskare searched and reactivated (Amabile, 1996). Second,domain-knowledge functions as criteria for assessingthe appropriateness and correctness of the responses toa given task (Amabile, 1996).

In spite of its importance in domain-specific nature ofcreativity, previous studies supporting the domain-specific view have not directly investigated the relativerole of domain knowledge in creative performance.Thus, past studies have not empirically supported themain claim of the theory of the domain-specificity ofcreativity (i.e., that domain-specific knowledge and skillsare determining factors in creative performance; Baer,1993, 1994; Han & Marvin, 2002). Only few studies haveattempted to examine the influence of domain knowl-edge on creativity (Diakidoy & Spanoudis, 2002; Sak& Maker, 2006); when they have, creativity was mea-sured by tests using a similar scoring method to thatof divergent thinking, rather than by experts’ ratingsof creative performance. There have not been anyattempts to investigate the influence of domain knowl-edge on creative performance, as measured byperformance-based assessments of creativity.

Task motivation is another important factor that isclosely related to the domain-specificity of creativity(Amabile, 1996; Renzulli, 1986; Sternberg, 2006). It isgenerally defined as an attitude toward a task and per-ceptions of one’s own motivation for undertaking thetask. Task motivation plays two important roles in cre-ative performance (Amabile, 1996). First, task motiv-ation determines whether an individual engages in agiven task or not. Second, it increases the motivationto use creativity-relevant skills for a given task or prob-lem. Although creativity researchers have proposedthat motivation plays a critical role in creativity as adomain-specific factor (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg,2006), research investigating the effect of motivationon domain-specific nature of creativity is rare. Thereare a few studies on the role of motivation in creativ-ity (Amabile, 1996; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1998;Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003; Hennessey & Amabile,1998), but these studies primarily focused on the generaleffects of external factors (e.g., reward and evaluation)on preexisting intrinsic motivation and creative per-formance. They did not examine the extent to which dif-ferences in initial levels of motivation affect creativeperformance in diverse domains.

Interest is a useful motivational construct for theinvestigation of the role of task motivation on creativeperformance in that it deals with the relationshipbetween an individual and a specific domain or task.Interest researchers have theoretically differentiated

CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN ART AND MATH 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

two kinds of interest according to the origin of interest:individual interest and situational interest (Hidi, 1990;Krapp, 2002; Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). Individ-ual interest (or personal interest) is defined as an indivi-dual’s relatively stable relationship to particulardomains or topics, which determines whether an individ-ual will attend to and reengage in these domains ortopics (Krapp et al., 1992; Schiefele, 1998). Situationalinterest, on the other hand, refers to an immediatepsychological state that is elicited primarily by thestimulus in the environment, rather than by an indivi-dual’s relatively stable characteristics (i.e., latent individ-ual interest) (Krapp et al., 1992; Schraw & Lehman,2001). The psychological states of situational interestinclude increased attention, concentration, pleasant feel-ing of applied effort, and increased willingness to learn(Krapp et al., 1992; Schiefele, 1998).

Two types of interest were measured in this study toinvestigate the differential effects of the two types oftask motivation on creative performance: (a) task motiv-ation as a stable trait and (b) task motivation as apsychological state (Amabile, 1996). More specifically,individual interest in this study assessed domain-specificmotivation as a trait, and situational interest assessedtask-specific motivation as a psychological state.Although interest has both cognitive and affective com-ponents, only affective components of interest were con-sidered in this study, because affective components ofinterest have been the central features of interest thatdistinguish it from other motivational constructs (Meyer& Turner, 2002; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).

Past studies rarely investigated possible interactionsamong divergent thinking, domain knowledge, and taskmotivation. However, the effect of a specific factor oncreative performance in a given domain could changeas it interacts with other factors (Amabile, 1996; Lubart& Guignard, 2004; Sternberg, 2006). For instance, itcould be hypothesized that even a high level of divergentthinking, a creativity-relevant skill, could result in a lowor medium level of creativity if domain-relevant skillsand=or task motivation is low (Amabile, 1996). Thus,the possible interactions among different factors needto be explored to evaluate the relative impact of a specificfactor on creative performance in a given domain as wellas understand better the complex roles of these compo-nents on creative performance in different domains.

Finally, past studies favoring domain-specificity haveneglected to consider domain structure and its potentialimpact on creative performance in different domains.Instead, these studies have focused on examining correla-tions among creative performances in different domains(Baer, 1993, 1994; Han & Marvin, 2002). However,considering the domain structure and its influence oncreativity in a specific domain is important because thecontributions of diverse domain-general and specific

factors to creativity, as well as the relationships amongthese factors, may change according to domainstructures (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1999; Lawless &Kulikowich, 2006; Li, 1997). For instance, Li (1997) pro-posed, through a comparison of Western and Easternpainting domains, that even two such similar domainshave different levels of constraints on creative perform-ance due to their different structures which are determ-ined by the following five parameters: (a) the aim ofthe domain; (b) the method featured in the domain; (c)the symbol systems and symbol uses; (d) the rules ofthe domains; and (e) the standards of quality. Based onthe different structures of domains, Li (1997) classifieddomains into two broad categories of horizontal domainsand vertical domains. Horizontal domains allow noveltyto occur in all dimensions of the domain, resulting inthe divergent development of the domain. In contrast,vertical domains possess certain stable elements thatare existentially fundamental to the domain, thus per-mitting alteration only around certain dimensions. In asimilar way, domains can be classified into well-structured domains and ill-structured domains (Lawless& Kulikowich, 2006). A well-structured domain is basedon algorithmic and rule-based information. On the otherhand, an ill-structured domain depends less on algorith-mic information, and more on heuristic approaches.

The purpose of this study was to address the afore-mentioned limitations of previous studies by investigat-ing relationships among domain-specific and domain-general factors in domains with different structures.More specifically, based on Amabile’s (1996) componen-tial model, this study included four predictor variables(divergent thinking, domain knowledge, and two typesof interest) and investigated the effects of these domain-general and specific factors on creative performance inart and math. The rationale for choosing art and mathwas that these two domains are quite different in theirdomain structures: Art is considered an ill-structuredand horizontal domain; math is considered a well-structured and vertical domain. In addition, in anattempt to explore the interaction among the variablesin this study, this study hypothesized and tested possiblemoderating and mediating effects of the two types ofinterest (situational and individual interest) on the rela-tionships among divergent thinking, domain knowledge,and creative performance in the two domains. By inves-tigating these relationships in the domains of art andmath, it was possible to explore how the relationshipsof the predictor variables to creative performancechanged in domains with different structures.

The following research questions were investigated:

Research Question 1: What are the relative contribu-tions of divergent thinking ability, domain knowl-edge, individual interest, and situational interest to

62 JEON, MOON, FRENCH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

eighth grade students’ creative performance in theart and math domains?

Research Question 2: Do different types of interest(individual and situational) moderate the relation-ship of divergent thinking ability to eighth gradestudents’ creative performance in the art and mathdomains?

Research Question 3: Do different types of interest(individual and situational) mediate the relation-ship of domain knowledge to eighth grade students’creative performance in the art and math domains?

METHOD

Participants

Two hundred and twenty-one Korean eighth gradersparticipated in this study. One hundred and sixty-oneof the participants were recruited from one public middleschool in Seoul, Korea, and another 60 participants wererecruited from another public middle school in Jeollaprovince, Korea. The participants consisted of 113(51.1%) male and 108 (48.9%) female students. To pro-tect the rights of the participants, a consent form forparents and an assent form for students were prepared,and these consent and assent forms were reviewed andapproved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) ofthe university with which the authors were affiliated.These forms were completed by all participants.

Instrumentation

Performance-based assessment of creativity. Theparticipants’ creative performance in art and math wasmeasured using the following two tasks: a collage-making task for the art domain and a math word-problem creating task for the math domain. Theparticipants’ performance in the two tasks was assessedby Amabile’s (1996) Consensual Assessment Technique(CAT). Four Korean middle school art teachers workedas judges of the participants’ creative performance in thecollage-making task. Two of the art teachers were men,and the other two were women. The age of the art tea-chers ranged from 43 to 58, with a mean age of 48.50years (SD¼ 6.86), and the years of teaching experienceas a middle school art teacher ranged from 16 to 30years, with a mean of 22.25 years (SD¼ 5.80). Theseart teachers were asked to rate the participant’s per-formance in the collage-making task on a rating scaleranging from 1 to 10 (1¼ least creative; 10¼most cre-ative). Five Korean middle school math teachers werealso recruited as judges of the participants’ creative per-formance on the math word-problem creating task.Three of the math teachers were men, and the other

two were women. The age of these math teachers rangedfrom 28 to 46, with a mean of 37.00 years (SD¼ 8.78),and the years of teaching experience as a middle schoolmath teacher ranged from 3 to 20 years, with a mean of9.40 years (SD¼ 6.91). These math teachers were askedto rate the participant’s performance in the math task ona rating scale ranging from 1 to 10 (1¼ least creative;10¼most creative). Cronbach alphas for the interjudgereliabilities between the judges in this study were .85and .83 for the collage-making task and the math word-problem creating task, respectively.

Divergent thinking. To measure the participants’divergent thinking ability, two subtests in the Koreanversion of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking(TTCT; Torrance, 1966, 1974) adapted by Kim (2002)were used: (a) Unusual Uses test in Verbal Form Aand (b) Picture Completion test in Figural Form A.The two subtests were scored by two Korean graduatestudents whose major was Educational Psychology.Before the scoring, the graduate students were trainedto familiarize them with the test and its scoring proce-dures. In contrast to past studies in which scores on asingle criterion for divergent thinking test were corre-lated with creative performance in different domains,this study used the full scoring criteria for the scoringof the two subtests. There are few studies consideringthe full scoring criteria of divergent thinking test(Runco, 1986), but these studies used a questionnaireto measure creative performance in different domains,not using real creative performance tasks as in thisstudy. In addition, the scores on each criterion weresummed to yield a total divergent thinking score basedon a past study that reported that this summationmethod is one of the most valid alternative scoringmethods for divergent thinking tests (Runco, 1991).For the scoring of the Unusual Uses test, the criteriaof fluency, flexibility, and originality were used, andthe scores on these three criteria were summed to pro-duce a total score for the Unusual Uses test. The inter-scorer reliability for these continuous scores, estimatedby correlation coefficient, for the Unusual Uses was.99 in this study. The interscore reliabilities for the threecriteria of the Unusual Uses test were .98 for fluency, .93for flexibility, and .95 for originality, respectively. ThePicture Completion subtest also was scored by the sametwo graduate students. For the scoring of the PictureCompletion subtest, the following scoring criteria wereused: fluency, originality, elaboration, abstractness ofthe titles, and resistance to premature closure. Thescores on these five criteria were summed to yield a totalscore for the Picture Completion test. The interscorerreliability for the Picture Completion test was .97 in thisstudy. The interscorer reliabilities for the five criteria of

CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN ART AND MATH 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

the Picture Completion test were .99 for fluency, .96 fororiginality, .86 for elaboration, .97 for abstractness ofthe title, and .83 for resistance to premature closure,respectively. The total scores on the Unusual Uses testand the Picture Completion test were summed to pro-duce a total score of divergent thinking ability, and thistotal score was used as a measure of divergent thinkingability in the data analysis.

Domain knowledge. To measure the participants’domain knowledge in the art and math domains, theparticipants’ most recent final grades for their achieve-ment in art and math were used. These final gradesranged from 0 to 100, and they were provided by theprincipals of the two schools from which the parti-cipants were selected. In this study, the participants’final grades for achievement in art and math werebased on their academic performance in the previousacademic year.

Individual interest and situational interest. The part-icipants’ individual interest in math was measuredthrough a translated version of the individual interestscale developed by Mitchell (1993). The original ques-tionnaire was developed to measure secondary students’individual interest in mathematics, and it includes fourquestions asking how enjoyable and exciting mathemat-ics is. The questions are rated on a scale ranging from 1to 6 (1¼ strongly disagree; 6¼ strongly agree). In thisstudy, the same four questions were also used to mea-sure the participants’ individual interest in art by chan-ging the domain name in the original questions. TheCronbach alpha for the original questionnaire was .92(Mitchell, 1993) and a confirmatory factor analysis con-ducted by Mitchell (1993) provided factorial validity evi-dence for this questionnaire by showing that the fourquestions on the questionnaire clustered well togetheron one factor, i.e., individual interest. In this study,Cronbach alphas for the translated versions of the orig-inal individual interest questionnaire were .93 and .93for art and math, respectively.

To measure the participants’ situational interest inthe two tasks, a translated version of the Interest=Enjoyment subtest from the Intrinsic MotivationInventory (IMI: Deci & Ryan, n.d.) was used. This testconsists of seven questions asking how interesting, fun,and enjoyable a specific activity or task was. Each itemis rated on a scale that ranging from (1¼ not at all true;7¼ very true) with two items requiring reverse coding.The Cronbach alpha for the original Interest=Enjoy-ment subscale was .78 (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen,1989), and a confirmatory factor analysis provided fac-torial validity evidence for the Interest=Enjoyment scale(McAuley et al., 1989). In this study, Cronbach alphas

for the translated version of the Intrinsic=Enjoymenttest were .91 for the collage-making task and .92 forthe math word-problem creating task.

Procedures

The data were collected in Korea between April andMay in the following chronological order. First, theparticipants’ latest academic semester’s final grades forart and math were collected with the written permissionof the principals of the two schools. Next, two individ-ual interest questionnaires for art and math, and thetwo subtests of the Korean version of the TTCT (Kim,2002) were administered in a 45min regular class. Theparticipants first were asked to rate their individualinterest in art and math by answering questions on thetwo individual interest questionnaires. About 10minwas assigned to the administration of the individualinterest questionnaires. After the completion of the indi-vidual questionnaires, the two subtests of the Koreanversion of the TTCT were administered. The two sub-tests were given in the order of the Unusual Uses testand the Picture Completion test. Fifteen minutes wereused per test for each subtest, and a total of 35minwas used for the administration of these two subtests,including the time for test instruction.

Two performance based-assessments were adminis-tered to measure the participants’ creative performancesin the art and math domains: the collage-making taskfor art, and the math word-problem creating task formath. No reward was given to the students to reducethe possible effects of a reward on their performancein the two tasks (Amabile, 1996). Each of the taskswas administered by one of the authors in regular classeson two different days, with the math word-problemcreating task given on the first day and the collage-making task on the second day. Right after each ofthe tasks was completed, the students were asked to ratetheir situational interest in a given task by respondingto the situational interest questionnaire.

Data Analysis

Data screening and handling of missing cases. Priorto the data analysis, minimum and maximum values,descriptive statistics, and frequencies for the variablesin the study were examined to check the accuracy ofthe data entry, potential univariate outliers, and missingdata. Table 1 shows that the scores on each of thevariables were within the plausible ranges. Regardingmissing cases, missing values at item level and=or vari-able level were found in 35 cases, which was around16% of the total cases. These missing values were filledin by multiple imputation (Rubin, 1987). Ten differentimputed data sets were generated using SAS PROC

64 JEON, MOON, FRENCH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

MI (SAS Institute, 2004) because, in most cases, three toten imputations may be needed (Rubin, 1987). After 10different data sets were prepared, the same data analyseswere conducted using each data set. Then, the results ofthe data analyses from 10 different data sets werecombined using SAS PROC MIANALYZE (SASInstitute, 2004).

Regression diagnostics. For each regression modeltested in the data analysis, several regression diagnosticswere examined: (a) Cook’s D value for multivariate out-liers, (b) tolerance values and variance inflation factorvalues for multicolinearity, (c) the residual and the pre-dicted values plot for the nonnormality of the residuals,and (d) normal Q-Q plots for checking whether the vari-ance of the residuals was constant across the cases. Insummary, there was no multivariate outlier found inany of the regression model tested in this study, andeach regression model tested did not violate the basicassumptions of regression analysis.

Centering data. To detect and interpret the moder-ating effects of a variable, the raw scores of all predictorand moderator variables were centered prior to the dataanalysis for two reasons (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991):(a) Centered data can make otherwise uninterpretableregression coefficients meaningful; (b) centered datareduces multicollinearity among predictors. The cen-tered scores were produced by subtracting a mean scoreof a variable from an individual observation of thatvariable (Aiken et al., 1991).

Data analysis procedures for moderating effects. Toinvestigate the hypothesized moderating effects ofthe two types of interest on the relationship betweendivergent thinking ability and creative performancein art and math, the following regression analysissteps were taken (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004).First, gender was entered into the regression model.Next, all the predictors and moderator variables(i.e., individual and situational interest) were enteredsimultaneously. Finally, the two moderating effectterms made from divergent thinking ability and thetwo types of interest were added to the previousmodel: (a) individual interest� divergent thinkingability; (b) situational interest� divergent thinkingability. The same steps were used for each of thetwo criteria variables in this study (i.e., the twoperformance-based assessments in the art and mathdomains).

Data analysis procedures for mediating effects. Totest the mediating effects of individual interest andsituational interest on the relationship betweendomain knowledge and creative performance in thetwo domains, the following three regression analyseswere conducted to test each of the four mediationmodels (two types of interest� two types of creativeperformance) based on the procedures proposed byBaron and Kenny (1986): (a) the first regressionanalysis tested the relationship of a predictor(domain knowledge) to a criterion variable (creativeperformance in art or math) without consideringeither mediator variable (the two types of interest);(b) the second regression analysis tested the relation-ship of a predictor (domain knowledge) to one of themediator variables (the two types of interest); and (c)the third regression analysis tested the relationshipof each of the mediator variables (individual orsituational interest) to each of the criterion variables(creative performance in art or math), while con-sidering the predictor (domain knowledge).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, skewness,kurtosis, and possible ranges of the variables in thestudy. No variable departed from normality except artachievement, which showed relatively high skewnessand kurtosis values. However, the art achievement vari-able was not transformed because the normality of uni-variate variables is not assumed in multiple regressionanalysis (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics

Variables Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

Possible

Range

Predictor

Individual interest

(Art)

13.50 5.75 �0.05 �1.01 4–24

Individual interest

(Math)

13.50 5.73 �0.04 �0.93 4–24

Situational interest

(Art)

31.70 10.89 �0.45 �0.25 6–49

Situational interest

(Math)

27.99 12.27 �0.04 �0.78 6–49

TTCT 95.33 48.23 0.86 0.78 0–1Art achievement 80.12 12.90 �1.94 5.38 0–100

Math achievement 69.70 20.76 �0.70 �0.27 0–100

Criterion

Art creative

performance

5.20 1.98 �0.03 �0.84 1–10

Math creative

performance

4.21 1.61 0.03 �0.79 1–10

Note. The descriptive statistics were combined estimates from the

ten imputed data sets. TTCT¼Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.

CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN ART AND MATH 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Correlations Among the Predictor and CriterionVariables

Prior to regression analyses, Pearson correlation coeffi-cients among the predictor and criterion variables werecalculated. In the art domain, all the predictors were sig-nificantly correlated with creative performance in the arttask (r¼ .32, p< .001 for the summed TTCT score;r¼ .28, p< .001 for art achievement; r¼ .24, p< .001for situational interest; r¼ .22, p< .01 for individualinterest, respectively).

Similarly, all the predictors were significantly corre-lated with creative performance in the math task(r¼ .38, p< .001 for math achievement; r¼ .27,p< .001 for the summed TTCT score; r¼ .24, p< .001for situational interest; r¼ .14, p< .05 individual interestfor individual interest, respectively).

Main Effects and Moderating Effects for Art

Table 2 shows the unstandardized regression coefficientsand their standard errors, R2, and R2 change for creativeperformance in art. Gender was not a significant predic-tor of the criterion variable. When the four predictorswere entered as a second block, they accounted for13% of the variance in creative performance in thecollage-making task. Among the four predictors, onlythe summed TTCT score and art achievement gradeshad statistically significant relationships to the criterion.The unique contribution of these two variables, whichwas evaluated by squared semipartial correlation, was5% for the TTCT score and 2% for the art achievement

grade, respectively. The two moderating effect termsentered after the predictor variables were not statisti-cally significant. Hence, the hypothesized moderatingeffects of individual interest and situational interest onthe relationship between divergent thinking ability andcreative performance in the collage-making task werenot supported.

Main Effects and Moderating Effects for Math

Table 3 presents the unstandardized regression coeffi-cients and their standard errors, R2, and R2 changewhen all the variables were entered. Gender was not sig-nificant predictor of creative performance in the mathtask. When the four predictors were entered in thesecond step, these four predictors, together, explained21% of the variance of creative performance in the mathword-problem creating task. Among the four predictors,math grades, the summed TTCT score, and situationalinterest had a statistically significant contribution to cre-ative performance in the math task. The unique contri-bution of each of these three variables, which wasevaluated through squared semipartial correlation, was10% for math achievement, 3% for the TTCT scores,and 3% for situational interest. The two moderatingeffect terms entered after the four predictors were notstatistically significant. As with the art domain, diver-gent thinking and math achievement had statisticallysignificant contributions to creative performance in themath task. However, situational interest also had a

TABLE 2

Testing Main Effects and Moderating Effects on Creative

Performance in Art Using Hierarchical Multiple Regression

Variables

Step 1 B1

(SE B1)

Step 2 B2

(SE B2)

Step 3 B3

(SE B3)

Gender �.860 (.260)�� �.211 (.280) �.264 (.028)

Art achievement .027 (.012)� .027 (.012)�

TTCT .010 (.003)�� .010 (.003)���

Individual interest .032 (.023) .029 (.023)

Situational interest .018 (.012) .018 (.013)

TTCT� Individual

interest

�.001 (.000)

TTCT�Situational

interest

.000 (.000)

R2 .05�� .18��� .19���

DR2 .13��� .01

Note. The unstandardized regression coefficients and their standard

errors (in parentheses) were combined estimates from the ten imputed

data sets. All the predictor variables and moderator variables except gen-

der were centered. Individual interest here refers to individual interest in

the art subject, and situational interest here refers to situational interest

in the collage-making task. For gender, female was coded as 0, and male

was coded as 1. TTCT¼Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.�p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001.

TABLE 3

Testing Main Effects and Moderating Effects on Creative

Performance in Math Using Hierarchical Multiple Regression

Variables

Step 1 B1

(SE B1)

Step 2 B2

(SE B2)

Step 3 B3

(SE B3)

Gender �.235 (.218) �.037 (.208) �.287 (.210)

Math achievement .027 (.005)��� .028 (.005)���

TTCT .006 (.002)�� .006 (.002)��

Individual interest �.017 (.019) �.017 (.020)

Situational interest .026 (.009)�� .025 (.009)��

TTCT� Individual

interest

.000 (.000)

TTCT�Situational

interest

.000 (.000)

R2 .01 .22��� .22���

DR2 .21��� .00

Note. The unstandardized regression coefficients and their standard

errors (in parentheses) were combined estimates from the ten imputed

data sets. All the predictor variables and moderator variables except

gender were centered. Individual interest here refers to individual inter-

est in the math subject, and situational interest here refers to situa-

tional interest in the math word-problem creating task. For gender,

female was coded as 0, and male was coded as 1. TTCT¼Torrance

Tests of Creative Thinking.�p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001.

66 JEON, MOON, FRENCH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

statistically significant contribution to explainingcreative performance in the math task, which was notthe case for the art task.

Mediating Effects of Interest for Art

A series of regression analyses was conducted to testhypothesized mediating effects of individual and situa-tional interest in art on the relationship between artachievement grades and creative performance in thecollage-making task. Individual interest in art did nothave a statistically significant mediating effect on therelationship between art achievement and creative per-formance in the collage-making task. Specifically, artachievement was not significantly related to individualinterest in art, and individual interest in art was not sig-nificantly related to creative performance on the art task.Situational interest in the collage-making task also didnot have a statistically significant mediating effect onthe relationship between art achievement and creativeperformance on the art task. Even though art achieve-ment was related to situational interest in the art task,situational interest did not have a statistically significantrelationship to creative performance on the art task.

Mediating Effects of Interest for Math

The same procedures that were used to test the mediat-ing effects of the two types of interest for art wereemployed to test whether the two types of interestmediated the relationship between math achievementand creative performance on the creative math task.The results of the data analysis show that individualinterest in math did not have a statistically significantmediating effect on the relationship between mathachievement and creative performance in the math task.Even though math achievement had a statisticallysignificant relationship to individual interest in math(B¼ .086, p< .001), individual interest in math did nothave a statistically significant relationship with creativeperformance on the math task. Similarly, situationalinterest in the math task did not have a statisticallysignificant mediating effect on the relationship betweenmath achievement and creative performance in the mathtask. Even though situational interest on the math taskhad a statistically significant relationship to creativeperformance (B¼ .026, p< .01), math achievement didnot have a statistically significant relationship to situa-tional interest in the math task.

DISCUSSION

This study investigated the effects of divergent thinking,domain knowledge, and two types of interest on creative

performance in art and math, as well as the possiblemoderating and mediating effects of interest on the rela-tionships among the other variables in this study. Therewere three main findings. First, what did appear toinfluence creative performance in both domains wasdomain-specific achievement and domain-general cre-ative thinking skills. However, the relative weightingof these two predictor variables differed by domain,with achievement more important in math and divergentthinking ability more important in art. Second, situa-tional interest had a statistically significant influenceon creative performance in the math domain, but notin the art domain. Individual interest, on the other hand,did not influence creative performance in either domain.Third, the hypothesized moderating and mediatingeffects of interest on creative performance were notsupported.

Nature of Creativity

The findings of this study provide support for both thedomain-general and the domain-specific views of crea-tivity, which suggests that the conflicting lines ofresearch in the prior literature both contain elementsof the truth. The primary support for the domain gen-eral model of creativity was the positive relationshipbetween divergent thinking and creative performancein both domains. The contribution of divergent thinkingto creative performances in the two tasks is inconsistentwith the findings of past studies supporting only thedomain-specific view of creativity (Baer, 1993, 1994;Han & Marvin, 2002), possibly because the compositemethod of measurement used in this study provided abetter test of the relative importance of domain generalcreativity skills to creative performance.

The findings in this study also provide support for thedomain-specific view of creativity in that domain knowl-edge, as measured by grades in art and math, had astatistically significant contribution to creative perfor-mances in both domains. However, the patterns of rela-tive contributions of domain knowledge to creativeperformance differed in art and math domains. Formath, the unique contribution of math achievement tocreative performance in math was higher compared tothat of divergent thinking ability in that the varianceaccounted for by math achievement appeared larger(semipartial r2¼ 10%) compared to the varianceaccounted for by divergent thinking ability (semipartialr2¼ 3%). This finding is aligned with the findings ofrecent studies in which math achievement had a statisti-cally significant contribution to creative performance inthe math domain (Livne &Milgram, 2006; Mann, 2009).For art, the unique contribution of domain knowledgeto creative performance is smaller compared to that ofdivergent thinking in that the variance accounted for

CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN ART AND MATH 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

by art achievement (semipartial r2¼ 2%) appearedsmaller compared to the variance accounted for bydivergent thinking ability (semipartial r2¼ 5%).

Altogether, the findings of this study suggest a morecomplex understanding of the nature of creativity wherethe knowledge and skills needed to be creative varyby domain. As noted earlier, math is a vertical, well-structured domain and art is a horizontal, ill-structureddomain (Lawless & Kulikowich, 2006; Li, 1997). Cre-ative performance in the math domain seems to dependmore on algorithmic information, such as math-specificknowledge, than on general heuristic approaches whichwould be facilitated by divergent thinking ability. Cre-ative performance in art, on the other hand, may dependmore on heuristic approaches such as divergent thinkingthan on art knowledge. Hence, the domain specific viewof creativity may be more applicable in math than artand the domain general view more applicable in art.

Creativity and Interest

The findings regarding interest were less robust andsomewhat difficult to interpret. Individual interest as adomain-specific motivational factor did not have a stat-istically significant contribution to creative performancein either art or math. This finding is inconsistent withthe findings of past research implying the positiverelationship between interest and creative performance(Delcourt, 1993; Kanevsky, 1992; Renzulli, 2005). Apossible explanation for the statistically non-significantmain effect of individual interest on creative perform-ance is that the individual interest scale used in thisstudy measured only the emotional dimension of indi-vidual interest. There are other dimensions of individualinterest which were not explored in the present study(e.g., valuing of a specific domain) (Renninger, 1992),and better measures of individual interest, which includethose unexplored dimensions, might show a statisticallysignificant relationship between individual interest andcreative performance. Another possible explanation isthat the role of emotional individual interest in creativeperformance may be altered by an individual’s long-term goal in a specific domain, which was not examinedin the study. As Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, andWhalen (1997) reported, talented teenagers committedthemselves to activities that did not provide immediateemotional interest when they thought that these activi-ties were important to their long-term goals.

Situational interest (task-specific motivation) didnot have a statistically significant contribution to cre-ative performance in art, but it did have a statisticallysignificant contribution to creative performance inmath. However, the relative importance of situationalinterest was smaller than expected. According to thecomponential model (Amabile, 1996), task motivation

is assumed to function at the most specific level, andits relative contribution should be higher than those ofdomain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant skills,which was not the case in this study. This inconsistentfinding may be interpreted in two ways. On the onehand, the role of task specific motivation in creative per-formance may be secondary to the role of creativity rel-evant cognitive abilities (Runco & Chand, 1995). On theother hand, task motivation may have long-term effectson creative performance, as is suggested by research onbig C creativity (Renzulli & Gardner, 1993). Futureresearch needs to examine the relative effects of differenttypes of interest on the development of sustained cre-ative performance at high levels in different domains.

The hypothesized moderating effects of the two typesof interest on the relationship of divergent thinking tocreative performance in the two domains were not stat-istically significant. Because low statistical power is oneof the possible reasons for the difficulties in detectingtrue moderating effects (Frazier et al., 2004), poweranalysis for the moderating effect terms was considered.However, the post hoc power analysis for these fourmoderating effect terms was not conducted because allof the unstandardized regression coefficients andsquared semipartial correlations for these four moderat-ing effect terms approached zero. This suggests that thestatistically non-significant moderating effects found inthis study did not result from low statistical power.Therefore, taken at face value, the findings of this studysuggest that the impact of divergent thinking on creativeperformance may be relatively stable and is not influ-enced by different levels of individual and situationalinterest, at least for performance on discrete, creativetasks in a school environment.

Similarly, the strength of the relationship betweendomain knowledge and creative performance did notdecrease when the two types of interest were considered.On the other hand, an interesting finding from themediation analysis was that the relationship between indi-vidual interest and domain knowledge was different in thetwo domains. The relationship between these two vari-ables was statistically significant in math, but not in art.This finding is aligned with the findings of Lawless andKulikowich (2006) who found that the relationshipbetween knowledge and individual interest was higher ina well-structured domain than in an ill-structured domain.

The findings related to the moderating and mediatingeffects of situational interest were complex in that the pat-terns for the relationships among knowledge, situationalinterest, and creative performance were quite different inthe two domains. Although these relationships did notreach statistical significance in this study, these interestingpatterns suggest that more research is needed to deter-mine the relationships among the variables to the devel-opment of creativity in the two domains.

68 JEON, MOON, FRENCH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Even though the instruments used in this study to mea-sure individual interest and situational interest had rela-tively high reliability, they assessed only the emotionaldimensions of interest, such as enjoyment. Futureresearch needs to include other important dimensionsof interest, such as exploration intention, attentiondemand, challenge, choice, and novelty (Chen, Darst,& Pangrazi, 2001; Gentry, Rizza, & Gable, 2001) to fullyinvestigate the relation between interest and creativeperformance across domains.

In addition, the interest questionnaires used inthis study were literally translated into the Koreanlanguage from the original questionnaires developedin English, with little to no attention to adaptationof the items to a different culture. Even though sev-eral bilingual translators were involved in the trans-lation, the translated questionnaires were not backtranslated, and quantitative analyses to check theequivalence of the original and translated versionsof the questionnaires were not conducted (Van deVijver & Hambleton, 1996). Therefore, there mightbe unexpected differences between the original andtranslated versions of the questionnaires. Futureresearch adapting original tests to another languageshould follow more sophisticated test adaptationprocedures to ensure the equivalence of the originaland adapted tests (Van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996).

Regarding the utility of the four predictors, thevariances explained by these four predictors were:(a) 13% for the collage-making task and (b) 21%for the math word-problem creating task. Eventhough the relative amount of these variances couldnot be evaluated because there are few comparablestudies (Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2007), it is aconcern that 79 to 87% of the variance in creativeperformance was left unexplained by the four predic-tors in this study. Future studies need to includeadditional domain-general and domain-specific fac-tors to examine their effects on creative performancein different domains. For example, future researchmight investigate the roles of metacognitive skills(Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Runco, 2007), thinkingstyles (Sternberg, 1997), personality traits (Feist,1999), and creative interests (Feinstein, 2006).

Another limitation of this study was that it investi-gated only two domains: art and math. Therefore, theinterpretations, especially the ones about the effects ofthe types and structures of a domain on creativeperformance, should be limited to the two domainsand=or domains with similar characteristics. Futureresearch should include other domains to study howthe relationships among various domain-general and

domain-specific factors influence creative performancein a variety of domains.

In addition to the limited number of the domainsinvestigated, the present study also used only one taskfor each domain. Even though the tasks used in thisstudy have been widely used in past research (Amabile,1983, 1996; Baer, 1993, 1994; Han &Marvin, 2002), theytypically demand minimal knowledge and skills (Baer,Kaufman, & Gentile, 2004). However, the demands ofa specific task can affect creative performance on thattask, depending on the characteristics and the difficultylevel of that task. For example, it has been found thatthe impact of knowledge on creative performances on agiven task can be quite different depending on whetherthe task at hand is knowledge-rich or knowledge-lean(Wu, Cheng, Ip, & McBride-Chang, 2005). Therefore,future research needs to use diverse tasks with differentcharacteristics and difficulty levels to examine how thedemands of a specific task can affect creative perform-ance across domains. As noted previously, it is alsoimportant for future research to examine how sustainedcreative performance in a domain develops over time.

The participants in this study were Korean 8th gradestudents. Therefore, the findings of this study cannot begeneralized to students at different age levels. Futurestudies using students at different age levels may revealhow the relationships among the variables in this studydiffer according to different developmental levels. Thefindings of this study also cannot be generalized to stu-dents in other cultures because subjective criteria for cre-ative performance may be different from culture toculture (Amabile, 1996). Future research needs to inves-tigate whether the relationships among the variables ofthis study are consistent across cultures.

Finally, the findings of this study may not be general-izable to highly creative students because the participantsin this study were average 8th grade students. The deter-minants of creative performance of highly creative stu-dents may be different than those of average students.For instance, at least one study has found that the effectof divergent thinking ability on creative performances indifferent domains was different for gifted and non-giftedchildren (Runco, 1986). Future research needs to includeboth highly creative students and average students andinvestigate how domain-general and domain-specific fac-tors operate differently for these two groups with differ-ent levels of abilities and motivational orientations.

CONCLUSION

Considering both domain-general and domain-specificfactors together can enhance our current understandingabout the nature of creativity in different domains. Thefindings of the study suggest that both domain-general

CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN ART AND MATH 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

and -specific factors contributed to creative performancesin different domains in different ways. It appears thatcreativity is neither wholly domain-general nor whollydomain-specific. Instead, it is complex phenomenon inwhich both domain-general and specific factors interactdynamically.

Linking the concept of interest to creative performancein a specific domain can contribute significantly to anunderstanding of the domain-specific nature of creativity.Even though a recent volume on creativity implies that weneed to differentiate general motivation and domain-specific motivation (Kaufman & Baer, 2005), a clearconceptualization of domain-specific motivation has notbeen suggested, especially with regard to the domain-specific nature of creativity. This study employed the con-cepts of individual and situational interest to investigatethe influences of domain-specific and task-specific motiva-tional factors on creative performance. Although theeffects of individual and situational interest in this studywere limited, the concepts of individual and situationalinterest may provide a theoretical framework for futureresearch on the roles of domain-specific and task-specificmotivational factors in creative performance becauseinterest explains why an individual is interested in aspecific domain or a specific task.

Considering all the dimensions of divergent think-ing together (i.e., fluency, flexibility, originality, andelaboration) may provide a better measure of diver-gent thinking. Most past studies used a single cri-terion for the scoring of the divergent thinking test(e.g., verbal flexibility) and related this divergentthinking measure to creative performance (Baer,1993, 1994; Han & Marvin, 2002). These studiesreported statistically nonsignificant relationshipsbetween divergent thinking ability and creative per-formance. However, these nonsignificant findingsmay be due to measurement limitations. The presentstudy measured divergent thinking by a summationscoring method in which all the dimensions of diver-gent thinking were considered together (Runco,1991). Thus, the statistically significant contributionof divergent thinking to creative performance foundin this study may have resulted from using a moresound method of measurement. At the very least,the study provides support for the view that differentways of measuring divergent thinking can lead todifferent results (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999).

Finally, and most importantly, the present studyprovides evidence supporting the hypothesis that therelative roles of domain-general and domain-specificfactors in creative performance may differ acrossdomains according to the structure of those domains.The implication is clear—we need to pay more attentionto the nature of a specific domain when we examine thedomain-specific nature of creativity.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression:

Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social

psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific

approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A

multidomain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal,

7, 35–46.

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the

consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products.

Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113–117.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator vari-

able distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic,

and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Chen, A., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2001). An examination of

situational interest and its sources. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 71, 383–400.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied mul-

tiple regression=correlation analysis for behavioral sciences. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005).

A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Test of Creative

Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 49, 283–291.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems

view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity:

Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective

for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook

of creativity (pp. 313–335). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. R., & Whalen, S. (1997). Talented

teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (n.d.). The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory

(IMI). Retrieved June 10, 2006 from http://www.psych.rochester.

edu/SDT/measures/word/IMIfull.doc

Delcourt, M. A. B. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary

school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23–31.

Diakidoy, I. N., & Spanoudis, G. (2002). Domain specificity in creativ-

ity testing: A comparison of performance on a general divergent-

thinking test and a parallel, content-specific test. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 36, 41–61.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, intrinsic interest, and

creativity: New findings. American Psychologist, 53, 676–679.

Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Reward, intrinsic motivation,

and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological

isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121–130.

Feinstein, J. S. (2006). The nature of creative development. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.

Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific

creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273–

296). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). The role of the knowledge base in creative

thinking. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason

in cognitive development (pp. 137–144). New York: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

70 JEON, MOON, FRENCH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativ-

ity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development.

Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231–247.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator

and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.

Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Gable, R. K. (2001). Gifted students’

perception of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban,

and suburban students attitudes.Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 115–129.

Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creative talents: Their nature, uses, and develop-

ment. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Han, K.-S., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating

domain-specificity of creativity in young children. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 46, 98–109.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Reward, intrinsic

motivation, and creativity. American Psychologist, 53, 674–675.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for

learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.

Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). Empirical

benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Retrieved December

12, 2007 from http://www.mrdc.org/publications/459=full.pdf

Kanevsky, L. (1992). The learning game. In P. S. Klein & A. J.

Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 204–244).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). Creativity across domains: Faces of

the muse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kim, Y. (2002). The Korean version of the Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking. Daegu, Korea: Korea Future Problem Solving Program=

Hyun-Gok R&D.

Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest develop-

ment: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective.

Learning and Instruction, 12, 383–409.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (1992). Interest, learning, and

development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.),

The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2006). Domain-knowledge and

individual interest: The effects of academic level and specialization

in statistics and psychology. Contemporary Educational Psychology,

31, 30–43.

Li, J. (1997). Creativity in horizontal and vertical domains. Creativity

Research Journal, 10, 107–132.

Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (2006). Academic versus creative

abilities in mathematics: Two components of the same construct?

Creativity Research Journal, 2, 199–212.

Lubart, T., & Guignard, J. H. (2004). The generality–specificity of crea-

tivity: A multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. G. Grigorenko,

& J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization

(pp. 43–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mann, E. L. (2009). The search for mathematical creativity: Identify-

ing creative potential in middle school students. Creativity Research

Journal, 21, 338–348.

Mayer, R. E. (2005). The role of domain knowledge in creative prob-

lem solving. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and rea-

son in cognitive development (pp. 145–158). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric

properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive

sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.

Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in class-

room motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 107–114.

Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in

the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 85, 424–436.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education:

Theory, research, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education.

Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Tor-

rance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research

Journal, 12, 103–114.

Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the

study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of

creativity (pp. 35–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A devel-

opmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E.

Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 246–279). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Gardner, H. (1993). Several creators of the modern

era. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 246–279). New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Renninger, K. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implica-

tions for theory and practice. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, &

A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development

(pp. 361–397). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Runco, M. A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in

gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 46, 375–384.

Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, devel-

opment, and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity.

Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243–267.

Sak, U., & Maker, C. J. (2006). Developmental variation in children’s

creative mathematical thinking as a function of schooling, age, and

knowledge. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 279–291.

SAS Institute. (2004). The SAS system for windows. Cary, NC: Author.

Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning—What we know

and what we don’t know. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. A.

Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings

of the Seeon conference on interest and gender (pp. 91–103). Kiel,

Germany: IPN.

Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the

literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology

Review, 13, 23–52.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research

Journal, 18, 87–98.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.

Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington,

MA: Personnel Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school

children (1958–1980)—and the teacher who ‘‘made a difference.’’

Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55–62.

Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements

yearbook (pp. 1632–1634). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska,

Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some

practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.

Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to

theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity

(pp. 226–250). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wu, C. H., Cheng, Y., Ip, H. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Age

differences in creativity: Task structure and knowledge base.

Creativity Research Journal, 17, 321–326.

CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN ART AND MATH 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

14:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014