divergent thinking as a function of time and prompting to “be creative” in undergraduates

Rereorch Note

Divergent Thinking Rs a function OF Time and Prompting to “Be Creative” in Undergraduates

GAEGG A . J O H N S l l N D A W . M O R S E

FIBSTAACT This study examined divergent thinking in undergraduates as a function of gender, time, and test instruction conditions. Differences were examined in male and female undergraduates when tested on a divergent thinking test with or without prompting to “be creative” and with or without time limitations imposed. Subject groups were assigned to one of the following four conditions: standard instructions/four minute time limit; standard instructions/no time limit; creative instructions/ four minute time limit; and creative instructions/no time limit. The no time limit condition resulted in significantly higher mean traditional fluency and flexibility divergent production scores. Males were found to have significantly higher mean divergent production scores on fluency. This study supported previous research findings regarding the lack of enhanced traditional divergent production scores for females resulting from creative instructions.

IMAODUCllON Divergent thinking has been characterized as the ability to produce multiple and unique solutions to problems and tasks. It is considered to play a major role in creative thought and giftedness (Khatena, 1992; Runco, 1993). In his landmark work, Guilford ( 1967) theorized divergent production as one component of his structure of intellect model. He conceptual- ized divergent production as 24 modes of operation with figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral components. More recently, Mumford and Gustafson (1988) described the multi- faceted nature of creativity and the contributions of divergent production as an integral component.

156 Volume 31 Number 2 Second Quarter 1997

Journal of Creative Behavior

Several researchers have developed tests to assess the various modes of divergent production (Guilford, 1967; Mednick, 1962; Mednick, 1963; Mednick, Mednick, & Mednick, 1964; Meeker, 1969; Meeker & Meeker, 1975; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). These tests assess divergent production in terms of ideational fluency (the number of distinct ideas), flexibility (the number of ideational categories), and originality (the number of unusual or infrequent responses) on figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral tasks (Guilford, 1967; Meeker, 1969; Meeker & Meeker, 1975; Runco, 1986a; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). The “brick uses task” and alternate uses tasks are examples of tests used to assess divergent semantic classes (DMC) (Guilford, 1967; Meeker, 1969; Wallach & Kogan, 1965;). These tests assess subjects’ abilities to think of unique uses for common household items. Subjects’ responses are scored for instances of ideational fluency, flexibility, and originality.

There are several examples of research in the literature which examine divergent production in various populations on this and similar tasks (Baughman & Mumford, 1995; Borland, 1986; Borland, 1988; Chand & Runco, 1993; Harrington, 1975; Hocevar, 1979; Hocevar & Michael, 1979; Howieson, 1981; Katz & Poag, 1979; Kirkland, 1974; Runco & Albert, 1985; Runco, 1986a; Runco, 1986b; Runco, 1986~; Runco & Okuda, 1991; Runco & Mraz, 1992; Runco, 1993; Zarnegar, Hocevar, & Michael, 1988; Zegas, 1976). Harrington (1975) found differences in male subjects’ divergent thinking scores on alternate uses tasks when the test instructions were modified to encour- age creativity. Similar results were obtained for male subjects by Katz and Poag (1979) when altering test instructions with a sample of male and female undergraduates. However, the same was not true for female subjects in the Katz and Poag (1979) study. In both of these studies, subjects were allowed four minutes to complete each section of the task.

Runco ( 1986a) found differences in a within-subjects design which compared divergent thinking scores of gifted, talented, and nongifted children with standard and creative instructions and no time limits. He did not examine effects attributable to gender, but found age to be a significant covariate. Borland ( 1988) conducted a divergent-production abilities factor analytic study using the “brick uses” test. He did not impose a time limit on the task in order to maximize divergent production.

More recently, several studies have found manipulations of task instructions to significantly enhance divergent production (Runco & Okuda, 1991; Chand & Runco, 1993; Baughman &

157

Divergent Thinking As a Function of Time and Prompting to “Be Creative” in Undergraduates

Mumford, 1995). Runco and Okuda (1991) found explicit instructions to enhance flexibility scores resulted in significantly higher flexibility scores. However, these instructions resulted in low originality scores, whereas, explicit instructions prompting unique responses significantly enhanced originality scores. Significant effects of explicit instructions regarding creative solutions to “real world” problems have also been found (Chand & Runco, 1993). Baughman and Mumford (1995) found production of original responses to be significantly enhanced through the use of explicit instructions for category-exemplar generation problems. They also found scores on Raven’s Pro- gressive Matrices to be a significant source of covariation.

Although formative divergent thinking theory and research viewed ideational fluency, flexibility, and originality as differ- ential products of divergent thinking, several studies have found these traditional measures to be closely related and lacking in discriminant validity (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988: Hocevar, 1979; Hocevar & Michael, 1979; Runco, 1986c; Runco & Albert, 1985). Hocevar (1979) found that originality and flexibility measures were confounded by ideational fluency scores. Hocevar and Michael (1979) found the use of ratio scores (obtained by dividing both originality and flexibility by fluency) to meet discriminant validity requirements. However, in terms of originality, this only applied to originality measures obtained by subjective ratings rather than those which are statistically derived (Hocevar & Michael, 1979). Additional studies have utilized similar ratio score procedures, partialing the effects of fluency from other measures, or ideational sets to address the shortcomings of traditional measures in terms of discriminant validity (Chand & Runco, 1993; Runco & Albert, 1985; Runco & Mrat, 1992: Runco & Okuda, 1991).

Although previous studies have examined the effects of the independent variables in this study, the present study extends the literature by investigating these independent variables in conjunction with sources of covariation (namely, age and grade point average). Additionally, this research extends the use of ratio scores which have been found to meet discriminant validity requirements, whereas, other studies using traditional indices of divergent thinking have not. The present study examined differences in traditional divergent thinking scores on an alternate uses task as a function of gender, standard vs. creative instructions, as well as a four minute time limit vs. no time limit. Age and grade point average were examined as sources of covariation. In addition, the effects of the inde-

158


pendent variables and covariates on ratio derived scoring were examined.

MUHOD

Subjects Subjects consisted of a volunteer sample of 20 male and 59 female undergraduate education majors (25% male, 75% female) at a moderate-sized Southern university. All subjects were members from four sections of a core writing course required of all undergraduate education majors. Data from three subjects were nbt included in the study due to their fail- ure to provide complete demographic information regarding student classification, age, and grade point average or due to a consistent idiosyncratic response style which was considered an invalid response set (i.e., repetitive responses to all three stimuli, “eat it, wear it, burn it, chew it, throw it, etc.”).

The instrumentation consisted of an Alternate Uses Task which asked subjects to think of as many unique uses of common objects as possible other than their typical uses (Wallach & Kogan, 1965: Guilford, 1967; Meeker, 1969). One section with two standard objects (newspaper and automobile tire) and one nonstandard object (pencil) was utilized as outlined by Katz and Poag (1979). Pencil was considered a nonstandard stirnulus in that it was not utilized in formative alternate uses research (Wallach & Kogan, 1965; Guilford, 1967; Meeker, 1969). ideational fluency, flexibility, and originality scores were computed for each subject for the total task (item scores were tallied for a total task score). Responses involving typical uses for the items were not scored (i.e., pencil - “to write with”, “to draw with”, etc.). Fluency scores were computed by totaling the number of responses, involving uses for stimulus objects other than those for which they were designed, across the three objects. Flexibility scores were computed by totaling the number of ideational categories across the three object items (i.e.. arts and crafts responses and yard and garden responses would represent two different categories of responses).

Originality sco$ng criteria were derived from tallying the frequencies of responses which were judged to be uncommon in regard to the total subject sample and which were given by less than 5% of the total sample of subjects (a frequency of < 4). Responses which met this criteria were scored as original.

In addition, ratio scores were computed by dividing each subject’s flexibility score by his or her fluency score (Hocevar & Michael, 1979). However, ratio scores were not computed for originality/fluency due to originality measures being

Meosures ond Procedure

159

Divergent Thinking As a Function of Time and Prompting to ”Be Creative“ in Undergraduates

obtained on the basis of statistical rarity and their reported lack of discriminant validity (Hocevar & Michael, 1979).

The four course sections were randomly assigned to one of the four following groups using SPSS/PC+: standard instructions/four minute time limit; standard instructions/no time limit; creative instructions/four minute time limit; and creative instructions/no time limit. The primary investigator administered the test to each of the four groups at the beginning of class.

The same instructions used by Katz and Poag (1979), which were adapted from Harrington (1975), were used with slight modifications to introduce a variation in time requirements, to not impose a limit on the number of responses, and to accom- modate the use of only one part of the test. The instructions are as follows with Katz and Poag’s (1979) creativity modifications and these investigators’ time modifications in parenthe- ses. Asterisks (*) also follow statements which were omitted by these investigators for subjects in the no time limitations conditions. These instructions were read to the subjects:

The following is a test of your ability to think (creatively) about uses for some common objects. Each of the objects you will be asked to think about has a common use with which you are familiar. Your task is to list as many other (creative) uses for which the object or parts of the object could serve. (A creative use is one which is both unusual - a use which other people would be unlikely to think of - and worthwhile.) Do not spend too much t ime on any one item.(*) Write down those (creative) uses that occur to you and go on to others in the test.(*) You may return to incomplete items if time permits.(*) You will have four minutes to complete the test.(*) (Try to be creative.) (You may take your time and turn in your tests when you are Finished). If you have any questions, ask them now.

Subjects in the four minute condition were told to “stop” immediately after four minutes had elapsed and to turn in their tests. Subjects in the no time limit condition were not given a specific time limit, but were asked to turn in their papers after ten minutes had elapsed. This was done in order to limit the amount of interrupted class time.

The test items were presented on separate stapled pages, with one item per page. A reminder to “be creative” was placed at the top of the pages for subjects in the creative instructions condition as in Katz and Poag’s (1979) study. The items were presented on the pages in the same fashion as outlined by

I60


Wallach and Kogan (1965), i.e., "Tell me all the different ways you could use a newspaper".

The test booklet contained a questionnaire on the cover sheet which required subjects to provide demographic information. No identifying information was requested. Subjects were asked to report their age in years, grade point average to two decimal points, and gender.

Each score category (which included ideational fluency, flexibility, and originality) was analyzed using a Gender x Instruction x Time ANCOVA design with the Statistical Pack- age for the Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows) (Norusis, 1993). Age and grade point average were examined as sources of covariation.

Data Analysis

AESUlTS Ideational Fluency

The analysis for ideational fluency measures suggested a statistically significant covariate for grade point average, r( 1,69) = 8.03, e < .01. However, age did not result as a statistically significant covariate, f=( 1, 69) = 0.11, e .05. Statistically significant main effects were found for Time, E( 1, 69) = 5.36, p < .05 and for Gender, f=( 1,69) = 4.12, p < .05. No other statistically significant main effects or interactions were found.

These results suggest that for the main effect, Time, the no time limit group (M = 12.59, SD = 7.20) had statistically significantly higher adjusted mean ideational fluency scores than did the 4 minute time limit group (M = 9.61,'SD = 3.88). For the main effect Gender, males (M = 14.66, SD = 7.89) had statistically significantly higher adjusted mean ideational fluency scores than did females (M = 10.11, = = 4.96). Though Instructions was not a statistically significant main effect, the creative instructions group (M = 12.37, SD = 7.89) had higher adjusted mean fluency scores than the standard instructions group (a = 10.13, SD = 5.47).

For flexibility measures, grade point average resulted as a statistically significant covariate, r( 1, 69) = 4.36, e < .05. Age did not result as a statistically significant covariate. A statistically significant main effect was found for Time, f=( 1, 69) = 5.61, p < .05. No other statistically significant main effects or interactions were found. These results suggest that for the main effect, Time, the no time limit group (a = 10.69, SD = 5.81) had statistically significantly higher adjusted mean flexibility scores than did the 4 minute time limit group (M = 8.37, - SD = 3.38). Again, though statistical significance was not obtained for the main effect for Instructions, the creative instructions group (a = 10.44, SD = 5.39) obtained higher

Flexibility

161

Divergent Thinking As a Function of Time and Prompting to "Be Creative" In Undergraduates

Originality

Ratio Scoring

CONCLUSIONS

adjusted mean flexibility scores than the standard instructions group (M = 8.87, SD = 4.48).

For originality measures, a statistically significant covariate was found for grade point average, f=( 1, 69) = 4.95, p < .05. Age was not found to be a statistically significant covariate, - F( 1, 69) = .0009, E > .05. No statistically significant main effects or interactions were found for the Gender x Instruction x Time ANCOVA for originality measures.

For ratio scoring procedures based on flexibility divided by fluency, grade point average resulted as a statistically significant covariate, E (1,69) = 4.16, p < .05. Interestingly, GPA was negatively correlated with ratio scores. Age did not result as a statistically significant covariate, _F ( 1 , 69) = .62, E > .05. No statistically significant main effects or interactions were found for ratio scores.

Age did not emerge as a statistically significant covariate for this study of undergraduates. These findings conflict with those of Runco (1986a) in his study of children and adolescents. This may suggest that age is related to maturational or cognitive development factors in school age children which are not present in a typical college-age population of undergraduates. In the present study, ages ranged from 19 to 45 years with a mean of 22.29. However, there were only 10 subjects above the age of 25 in the sample (13% of the total). Future studies should examine age as a covariate for a sample of subjects with a more normal distribution in age.

Grade point average (GPA) did emerge as a statistically significant positive covariate. This suggests that increased achievement and/or intelligence may be related to higher divergent production scores with this sample of undergraduate education majors. Dobbins, Farh, and Werbel(l993) found that low GPA respondents tended to inflate GPAs higher than high GPA respondents when self-reporting GPAs on research sur- veys. This trend tended to be consistent across situations. Despite the limitations of using self-reported GPAs, these consistent trends suggest that self-reported GPAs may be useful covariates. Future studies should consider examining the use of documented GPAs and other achievement or intelligence measures as sources of covariations on similar tasks.

The results of this study suggest that these subjects were able to provide more divergent responses on traditional measures of fluency and flexibility for the Alternate Uses Task when not restricted to a 4 minute time limit. These findings suggest

162


that the use of a four minute time limit may restrict fluency and flexibility on this particular task.

Significant differences were not obtained for explicit instructions as reported in previous studies. This may have resulted from the limitations of sample size and the use of the Alter- nate Uses task exclusively whereas previous studies examined more varied divergent thinking tasks.

Males were found to have significantly higher mean ideational fluency scores than females. Males were also found to have higher mean flexibility scores than did females, though statistical significance was not achieved. However, these findings are limited in that there were nearly three times as many females as males in the sample. The limited number of male subjects prevented robust testing of Harrington’s (1975) and Katz and Poag’s (1979) findings that creative instructions enhanced divergent production scores for males. The results of this study suggest that creative instructions did not enhance divergent production scores for males in this sample. However, for females, these findings appear to confirm Katz and Poag’s (1979) findings regarding the lack of enhancement for divergent production scores resulting from creative instructions.

The interaction of time and instructional conditions did not emerge as statistically significant effects for this study. Future studies should examine larger samples which are more equally balanced for gender. The use of random assignment of subjects to treatment conditions may produce different results and enhance the generalizability of the findings. In addition to the considerations for covariates, groupings of undergraduates by classification (i.e., freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior) may enhance Future studies.

The nonsignificant results of ratio score measures suggest that fluency measures confounded the traditional flexibility measures. This supports the literature regarding the confounding effects of fluency on divergent production measures.

REFERENCES BAUGHMAN. W. A. & MUMFORD, M. D. (1995). Process-analytic models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination-and- reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37-62.

BORLAND. J. H. (1986). A note on the existence of certain divergent- production abilities.Journa1 for the Education of the Gifted, 9,239251.

BORLAND, J. H. (1988). Cognitive controls, cognitive styles, and divergent production in gifted preadolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1 1 , 57-82.

CHAND. I . & RUNCO, M.A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14.155162.

163

Divergent Thlnking As a Function of Time and Prompting to "Be Creative" in Undergraduates

DOBBINS, G. H.. FARH, J. L.. & WERBEL, J. D. (1993). The influence of self-monitoring on inflation of grade-point averages for research and selection purposes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

GUILFORD. J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

HARRINGTON, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to "be creative" on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality. 43,434454.

HOCEVAR, D. (1979). Ideational fluency a s a confounding factor in the

23, 321-334.

measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191 - 196.

HOCEVAR, D. & MICHAEL, W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educational and Psych ologica 1 Measu remen t , 39,9 17-92 I.

HOWIESON. N. (1981). A longitudinal study of creativity: 1965-1975. Journal of Creatiue Behavior. 15. 117-134.

KATZ, A. N., & POAG. J. R. (1979). Sex differences in instructions to 'be creative" on divergent and nondivergent test scores. Journal of Personality. 47,518-530.

KHATENA, J. (1992). Gifled: Challenge and response for education. Itasca, IL F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

MEDNICK. S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69,220-232.

MEDNICK, M. T. (1963). Research creativity in psychology graduate students. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 27,265266.

MEDNICK, M. T.. MEDNICK. S. A.. MEDNICK. E. V. (1964). Incubation of creative performance and specific associative priming. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69,8448.

MEEKER, M. N. (1969). The structure of intellect. Its interpretation and uses. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

MEEKER, M.. & MEEKER, R. (1975). SO/ learning abilities test - Examiner's manual. El Segundo, CA: SO1 Institute.

MUMFORD, M. D., & GUSTAFSON. S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin. 103. 2743.

NORUSIS, M. J. (1993). Stafistical package for the social sciences for Windows. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Inc.

RUNCO. M. A. (1986a). Maximal performance on divergent thinking tests by gifted, talented, and nongifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 23,308315.

RUNCO. M. A. ( 1986b). Predicting children's creative performance. Psychological Reports, 59. 1247- 1254.

RUNCO. M. A. (1986~). The discriminant validity of gifted children's divergent thinking test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 78-82.

RUNCO, M. A. ( 1993). Divergent thinking. creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly. 37. 1622.

164

Journal of CreaUve Behavior

RUNCO. M. A., & ALBERT, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45,483501.

RUNCO. M. A. & MRAZ, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52,213-221.

RCINCO, M. A., G OKCIDA, S. M. (1991). The instructional enhancement of the flexibility and originality scores of divergent thinking tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5.435-441.

WALIACH. M. A., & KOGAN. N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. A study of the creatiuity-intelligence disfinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

ZARNEGAR, Z., HOCEVAR. D.. & MICHAEL, W. B. (1988). Components of original thinking in gifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48.516.

ZEGAS, J. (1976). A validation study of tests from the divergent production plane of the Guilford Structurwf-Intellect Model. Journal 01 Creafiue Behauior, 10, 170-177.

Gregg A. Johns, Department of Counselor Education and Educational Psychology, P.O. Box 9727, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762. e-mail: [email protected].

Author Note The authors wish to acknowledge Michelle Harmon for her invaluable assistance in reviewing scoring procedures.

165

divergent thinking as a function of time and prompting to “be creative” in undergraduates

Documents