Download - The Role of Bilingualism in Creative Performance on Divergent Thinking and Invented Alien Creatures Tests

59

A N A T O L I Y V . K H A R K H U R I N

The Role of Bilingualism in CreativePerformance on Divergent Thinkingand Invented Alien Creatures Tests

ABSTRACTThis study continues the effort to investigate the possible influence of

bilingualism on an individual’s creative potential. The performances of Farsi-English bilinguals living in the UAE and Farsi monolinguals living in Iran werecompared on the Culture Fair Intelligence Test battery and two creativity tests:divergent thinking test (the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults) and structuredimagination test (Invented Alien Creatures task). The findings of the divergentthinking test revealed that bilingualism facilitates the innovative capacity, the abilityto extract novel and unique ideas, but not the generative capacity, the ability togenerate and process a large number of unrelated ideas. The findings of the testof structured imagination demonstrated that bilingualism strengthens an abilityto violate a standard set of category properties. In addition, the study hints at theconstruct validity of these two tests of creative functioning. However, the studyacknowledges its rather exploratory character as the bilingual and monolingualgroups might differ in a number of uncontrolled sociocultural factors that couldpotentially mediate the effect of bilingualism.

INTRODUCTIONThis study continues the effort made by Kharkhurin (2007) to investigate the

possible influence of bilingualism on an individual’s creative potential. A growingbody of research illuminates a particular phenomenon of bilingualism, which isthat being bilingual has an impact far beyond just an increased linguistic capac-ity. The research focusing on bilinguals’ cognitive abilities shows that they benefitfrom an advanced focus of attention and increased executive control (e.g.,Bialystok, 2001; Bialystok et al., 2005). Research focusing on their creative abili-ties indicates that bilinguals demonstrate superior divergent thinking skills (seeRicciardelli, 1992, for an overview).

Volume 43 Number 1 First Quarter 2009

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM65

Black

60

Bilingualism and Creativity

Creativity is a complex and versatile construct (e.g., Sternberg, 1999; Torrance,1988; Ward, 2007) that may be effectively studied by examining the variety ofprocesses and functions involved in a creative work (Getzels & Csikszentmihályi,1976; Lubart, 2000; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). The present study focuses on thecreative cognition approach (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992; Ward, Smith, & Finke,1999), which rests on two major assumptions. First, it adopts a common view(e.g., Martindale, 1989; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995) that characterizes creative prod-ucts as novel (i.e., original or unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful or meet-ing task constraints). Second, “ideas and tangible products that are novel anduseful are assumed to emerge from the application of ordinary, fundamentalcognitive processes to existing knowledge structures” (Ward, 2007, p. 28). There-fore, the capacity for creative thought is not limited to a certain class of giftedor specially talented people, but it is an essential property of normative humancognition. The methodological application of this paradigm constitutes a psy-chometric approach in which creativity can be studied using conventional toolsof experimental psychology.

THE ROLE OF DIVERGENT THINKING ANDSTRUCTURED IMAGINATION IN CREATIVE PERFORMANCE

In psychometric tradition, creative thinking is perceived as an ability to initiatemultiple cycles of divergent and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1967), whichcreates an active, attention-demanding process that allows generation of new,alternative solutions (Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon, & Doares, 1991).The fundamental difference between these two processes is that convergent think-ing is a conscious, attention demanding process, whereas divergent thinkingoccurs in the unconscious mind, where attention is defocused (e.g., Kasof, 1997;Mendelsohn, 1976) and thought is associative (e.g., Koestler, 1964; Mednick &Mednick, 1967; Ward, Smith, & Vaid, 1997). Divergent thinking involves a broadsearch for information and the generation of numerous novel alternative answersor solutions to a problem (Guilford, 1967).

Guilford (1967) associated the properties of divergent thinking with four maincharacteristics: fluency (the ability to rapidly produce a large number of ideas orsolutions to a problem); flexibility (the capacity to consider a variety of approachesto a problem simultaneously); elaboration (the ability to think through the detailsof an idea and carry it out); and originality (the tendency to produce ideas differ-ent from those of most other people). Kharkhurin (2008) has factor analyzedthese characteristics and found that they can be grouped together as two types ofcreative functioning: fluency, flexibility, and elaboration traits seem to representthe ability to generate and to elaborate on various, often unrelated, ideas, whilethe originality trait is likely to represent the ability to extract novel and uniqueideas. In the present study, the first type is referred to as generative capacity; itaddresses the ability to activate a multitude of unrelated concepts and workthrough the concepts already activated. The second type is referred to as innova-tive capacity; it accounts for the ability to produce innovative and useful ideas.

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM66

Black

Journal of Creative Behavior

61

The ability to keep active multiple unrelated conceptual representations simul-taneously has an apparent benefit for creative production — a capacity to con-sider at once a large number of properties of different categories. When peopletry to come up with a novel idea, their imagination is generally limited by a par-ticular set of properties characterizing a category to which this innovation shouldbelong (Ward, 1994). They tend to select the most common set of properties of acategory as a starting point for their creations (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995; Wardet al., 1997). A number of studies in various domains of creative production showthat the semantic structure of a category has a substantial influence on whatpeople produce (e.g., Purcell & Gero, 1996; Smith, Ward, & Schumacher, 1993;Ward, Patterson, Sifonis, Dodds, & Saunders, 2002). The “structured imagina-tion” (cf. Ward, 1994) limits individuals’ “thinking outside the box”; that is, peoplehave difficulties violating the conceptual boundaries of a standard category whencreating a new exemplar of that category. In this respect, creative thinking maybenefit from actively employing a spreading activation mechanism of divergentthinking, which engages conceptual representations from multiple categories.This multifaceted processing in turn may render a mental state in which at leastseveral sets of category properties become available for the thought process.This potentially may help to overcome the limitations of structured imaginationand therefore facilitate non-standard creative thinking.

The alien creature invention studies (cf. Ward, 1994) provide evidence that theinstructions to violate category boundaries boosted creative thinking (e.g., Ward,Patterson, & Sifonis, 2004; Ward et al., 2002). Moreover, the drawings of the crea-tures that revealed more violations of a standard set of properties characterizinga category were rated as more creative by other people (e.g., Kozbelt &Durmysheva, 2007; Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996). Kozbelt and Durmyshevacoded the drawings of invented alien creatures produced by participants on threeinvariants, the features that commonly appear in most participants’ responses.They found that violation of the standard invariants positively correlates withjudges’ creativity rating of the product. In other words, the drawings in which thestandard characteristics of an alien creature category were violated obtained highercreativity rating by the independent judges.

THE EFFECT OF BILINGUALISM ON CREATIVE PERFORMANCEIn the study on the relationship between bilingualism and divergent thinking,

Kharkhurin (2008) found that bilingual participants outperformed their monolin-gual counterparts on fluency, flexibility, and elaboration in divergent thinking.These findings are in line with a number of studies demonstrating bilinguals’advantages on various divergent thinking tasks (see Ricciardelli, 1992, for anoverview). Kharkhurin argues that superiority in these divergent thinking traitsmay result from the processes that activate and elaborate on a large number ofconcepts from diverse categories, which is defined earlier as generative capacity.

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM67

Black

62


Based on the earlier discussion, if bilinguals have advanced generative capacityand therefore operate on a larger span of diverse categorical representations,they might also show greater ability to violate category boundaries.

The present study explores a possibility of a different use of the processes andfunctions underlying creative thinking by bilinguals and monolinguals. It repli-cates Kharkhurin’s (2008) study with Farsi-English bilinguals. The test of struc-tured imagination is added to complement the test of divergent thinking inassessing the creative performance. The first hypothesis, in line with the previousstudy, predicts that bilinguals outperform monolinguals on the generative capac-ity. Based on the earlier discussion, the second hypothesis postulates thatbilinguals may show a greater tendency to violate invariants compared to theirmonolingual counterparts.

METHODPARTICIPANTS

Participants’ demographics are presented in Table 1. The bilingual participantswere 34 American University of Sharjah (United Arab Emirates, UAE) students(16 male and 18 female) between 19 and 28 years of age who speak Farsi as theirfirst language (L1) and English as their second language (L2). Only participantswhose score on Farsi or English objective naming test of pictures exceeded 30out of 120 items were selected for the study. The monolingual participants were37 Azadi Psychiatric Hospital (Tehran, Iran) students (6 male and 31 female)between 16 and 34 years of age who speak only Farsi. An additional 26 AmericanUniversity of Sharjah students (20 male and 6 female) between 18 and 25 yearsof age (M = 21.04, SD = 1.66) rated the drawings. They were born in differentcountries, moved to the UAE at different ages (M = 6.81, SD = 7.80), and residedin the UAE for different time intervals (M = 14.06, SD = 7.42).

TABLE 1. Participants’ mean (with standard deviation in parentheses) age,socioeconomic status (SES), language proficiency (PNT) in L1 andL2, age of onset of English instructions (AoE), age of arrival to a newcountry (AoA), and length of residence in a new country (LoR).

Language group Bilingual Monolingual

Age 22.38 (2.05) 23.84 (3.32)

SES 1.81 (.54) 1.49 (.56)

PNT of L1 105.91 (10.62) 103.38 (10.64)

PNT of L2 87.82 (14.40)

AoE 8.47 (3.91)

AoA 16.44 (5.87)

LoR 5.85 (4.96)

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM68

Black


63

INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURE

Biographical questionnaireA biographical questionnaire (BQ) similar to Kharkhurin (2008) was adminis-

tered to determine participants’ place of origin, age of emigration to the UAE(AoA), length of residence in the UAE (LoR), the age of acquisition of L2 (AoE),and socioeconomic status (SES; 0-fair, 1-average, 2-good, 3-excellent). Monolin-gual participants received a translated into Farsi version in which the questionsregarding the experience with two languages were eliminated.

Language proficiency assessmentParticipants’ proficiency in English and Farsi was tested on the Picture Nam-

ing Test (PNT, Kharkhurin, 2005). Language proficiency was assessed by theaccuracy of participants’ responses to 120 pictures of simple objects (seeKharkhurin, 2007, for a detailed description), a technique similar to BostonNaming Test (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 1983).

After administering the BQ and the PNT, participants were given two tests ofcreative thinking (divergent thinking and structured imagination tests) and atest of intelligence. The order of presenting these tests was counterbalanced toprevent the fatigue effect.

The test of divergent thinkingDivergent thinking abilities were assessed using the Abbreviated Torrance Test

for Adults (ATTA, Goff & Torrance, 2002). The standard ATTA has three paperand pencil activities (one verbal and two figural) preceded by a written instruc-tion that explains general guidelines and encourages participants to use theirimagination and thinking abilities. The instructions were given in English to thebilingual sample and in Farsi to the monolingual sample. The English version ofthe instructions was taken directly from the original ATTA; the Farsi version wasproduced by a research assistant who is a native speaker of Farsi. Participantswere given three minutes to complete each activity.

Two independent Farsi-English bilingual raters assessed participants’ diver-gent thinking abilities using the standard ATTA assessment procedure. This pro-cedure took age-related norms into account to obtain norm-referenced fluency,flexibility, elaboration, and originality scores as well as composite creativity index(CI). The inter-rater significantly high correlation between the indexes producedby both raters (r = .75, p < .001) indicated that the raters used the same rationaleand their ratings were comparable. Subsequently, the ATTA scores were aver-aged over both raters.

The test of structured imaginationStructured imagination was assessed using a version of the Invented Alien Crea-

tures task (IAC, cf. Ward, 1994) modified by Kozbelt and Durmysheva (2007).The task was reduced from the original version to suit the purpose of the present

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM69

Black

64


study. The test had two phases. In the first phase, the drawing task, the partici-pants were asked to imagine, draw, and describe a creature living on a planetvery different from Earth. They were encouraged to be as imaginative and cre-ative as possible and not to worry about how well or poorly they draw. They hadseven minutes to do the task. After participants finished drawing they were askedto imagine a different planet and to draw and describe a creature living on thisplanet. This trial was preceded by the same instructions as the first one and hadalso seven minutes to complete the task. The third trial replicated the secondone: the participants were asked to imagine a planet different from the previousones. All together, each participant had produced three drawings of the creaturesfrom three different planets.

In the second phase, the rating task, another group of participants was askedto rate the drawings. All of these participants were different from those whoinvented the creatures. The drawings were placed in the plastic folders andassigned random numbers to prevent any drawing order bias. All the labels andthe descriptions of the drawings were in English; therefore, those originally pro-duced in Farsi were translated into English by the research assistant, a fluentFarsi-English bilingual speaker. The participants were instructed to look at eachdrawing and decide how creative they think the creature is and judge the creativ-ity by placing it on one of six folders in front of them. Each folder was marked1 through 6: “1” corresponds to a very low creativity rating, “6” corresponds to avery high creativity rating, and “3” or “4” correspond to medium creativity rat-ings. The participants were encouraged to define creativity any way they liked.They were also asked to think about how original and surprising each creature is,and to try to put some of the creatures in each of the six folders.

A drawing’s creativity rating score was calculated using Rasch statistical analy-sis (Kozbelt & Durmysheva, 2007; Rasch, 1960). The analysis followed the proce-dure described by Kozbelt and Durmysheva. The Rash procedure yields aninterval-scale measure of creativity for each drawing and an overall estimate ofdrawing and rater internal consistency, equivalent to Cronbach α. Creature inter-nal consistency was .87, and rater internal consistency was .99. The correlationsbetween Rasch rating scores for all three drawings produced by each participantwere highly significant ranging from .58 to .62 (all ps < .001). Therefore, the over-all judges’ creativity rating (JCR) was calculated as an average of the Raschrating scores for all three drawings produced by each participant.

Further, two independent research assistants, both fluent speakers of Farsi andEnglish, used an invariant coding system (Kozbelt & Durmysheva, 2007) to cat-egorize each drawing on three invariants: bilateral symmetry, two eyes, and fourlimbs. Each invariant had five categories each of which was assigned a valueindicated in parentheses. For bilateral symmetry, the categories were: clearlybilaterally symmetric (0), bilaterally symmetric if the creature was rotated (0),superficially violating bilateral symmetry (e.g., an extra limb on one side; 1), clearlynot bilaterally symmetric (2), and unclear (0). For eyes and limbs, the categorieswere: clearly following the invariant (two eyes or four limbs; 0), drawing more

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM70

Black


65

features than the invariant (more than two eyes or four limbs; 2), drawing fewerfeatures (one eye or one to three limbs; 2), drawing no relevant features (1), andunclear (0). So, each drawing received an invariant value ranging from 0 (notviolated) to 2 (clearly violated). The inter-rater reliability was highly significant forall three invariants (r = .61, for bilateral symmetry; r = .77, for two eyes; and r =.77, for four limbs, all ps < .001). Reliabilities for eyes and limbs were adequate forlater analyses. Reliability for symmetry was lower, though still very reliable abovechance suggesting that both raters used the same coding strategy. The ratings ofboth raters were averaged to produce an invariant score for each of the invariantsfor each drawing. Subsequently, the total invariant score was calculated as a sumof three invariants’ scores of three drawings created by each participant; higherinvariant score indicated more invariants’ violation in the drawings.

The test of intelligenceParticipants’ IQ was assessed by Scale 3 Form A of a standard Culture Fair

Intelligence Test battery (CFIT, Cattell, 1973). The test is supposed to measurefluid intelligence, the ability to successfully reason in novel situations. The CFITuses nonverbal stimuli and therefore intends to assess intelligence in such a waythat the influence of verbal fluency, culture, and educational level has the leasteffect possible. The scale contains four subtests, involving different perceptualtasks, so that the composite intelligence measure does not rely on a singleskill. Each subtest starts with the examples that ensure understanding of the taskrequirements by the participants. Each subtest was preceded by the oral instruc-tions presented by the experimenter. The instructions were given in English to thebilingual sample and in Farsi to the monolingual sample. The English version ofthe instructions was taken directly from the original CFIT; the Farsi version wasproduced by a research assistant who is a native speaker of Farsi. Each subtestwas timed. The raw scores obtained from all four subtests were summarized andsubsequently transformed into normalized IQ score by the recommended proce-dure which took age-related norms into account.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

GENERATIVE AND INNOVATIVE CAPACITIES OF CREATIVE THINKINGThe first three columns of Table 2 present the inter-correlations among the

norm-referenced ATTA scores. The correlations between the ATTA measures werefactor analyzed using the principal component method with varimax rotation.SPSS FACTOR extracted two factors, which accounted for 71.09% of the vari-ance. Loadings of the measures on these factors appear in the last two columnsof Table 2, with the highest loading italicized. Factor I is determined by the ATTAmeasures of fluency, flexibility, and elaboration. This factor thus appears torepresent the generative capacity (GC) of divergent thinking. The second factorrepresents innovative capacity (IC) of divergent thinking with the highest loadingon originality.

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM71

Black

66


TABLE 2. Pearson correlations and factor loadings for the norm-referenced ATTAscores, N = 71.

Divergent thinking measures Factor loadings

2 3 4 I II

1. Fluency .51*** .33*** .11 .82 .072. Flexibility .35*** .05 .80 .203. Elaboration –.07 .70 –.294. Originality .04 .96

***p < .001

The overlap between this grouping and the findings of the previous study(Kharkhurin, 2008) suggests the consistency of the traits’ distribution across dif-ferent cultural groups. The previous study’s participants residing in the US andthe present study’s participants residing in Iran and the UAE showed exactly thesame distinction between generative and innovative capacities. The reliability ofthe ATTA assessment suggests that this test is likely to measure two distinctprocesses of creative thinking.

The four norm-referenced divergent thinking scores were subsequentlytransformed into GC and IC scores by creating a new variable for each factor.Anderson-Rubin method (Anderson & Rubin, 1949) of estimating factor scorecoefficients was used to ensure orthogonality of the estimated factors. The pro-duced scores had a mean of 0, a standard deviation of 1, and were uncorrelated.These scores were used in the further analyses.

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE ATTA AND THE IACTwo tests of creative thinking were used in this study: the ATTA provides the

composite CI; the IAC provides the JCR score. A marginally significant correla-tion between the CI and the JCR (r = .20, p = .09) suggests a possibility that boththe ATTA and IAC measure the same construct of creativity. However, it wasalso found that both the CI and the JCR correlate significantly with the IQ (r = .20,p = .09 and r = .26, p < .01, respectively). When the effect of IQ was partialedout, the correlation between two measures of creative performance droppeddown remarkably (r = .15, p = .21), which hints at intelligence correlates of bothcreativity measures.

BIAS FROM COMMON SOLUTION IS REGARDED AS MORE CREATIVEThe results of the IAC show that the ability to violate invariants significantly

correlated with the JCR (r = .49, p < .01). The IQ was also found to significantlycorrelate with the JCR (r = .26, p < .05). To see which of these two predicts theoverall creativity as judged by the independent raters, they were incorporatedinto multiple regression analysis. The full model predicting JCR was significant(F(2, 68) = 7.38, p < .01, R2 = .18, adjusted-R2 = .15). The analysis revealed thatonly the rate of invariant violation contributed significantly to prediction of theJCR (b = .51, SE = .17, ß = .35, t = 3.04, p < .01).

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM72

Black


67

The results demonstrate that the capacity for invariant violation predicts thecreativity rating of independent judges. The drawings in which the invariantcharacteristics (bilateral symmetry, eyes, and limbs) were different from moreordinary terrestrial creatures were given higher creativity scores by the raters.This finding suggests that people perceive the lack of the standard characteris-tics of a category as more creative.

BILINGUALS’ VS. MONOLINGUALS’ PERFORMANCE ON THE CREATIVITY TESTSFigure 1 presents the average scores of bilingual and monolingual participants

on the invariants, the GC, and the IC. An ANOVA revealed that bilingual partici-pants significantly outperformed their monolingual counterparts on the invariants(F(1, 69) = 5.84, p < .05, η2 = .08) and the IC1 (F(1, 69) = 18.25, p < .001, η2 = .21).

FIGURE 1. The average scores of bilingual and monolingual groups on theinvariant and generative and innovative capacities, N = 71.

1 Subsequent ANOVAs revealed that bilinguals showed higher performance only on the ATTA measureof originality (F(1, 69)=16.88, p<.001, η2=.20), and showed no significant differences with theirmonolingual counterparts on the ATTA measures of fluency, flexibility, and elaboration.

Gen

erat

ive

Cre

ativ

ity

1.00—

0.50—

0.00—

–0.50—

–1.00—Monolingual Bilingual

Language Group

8.00—

6.00—

4.00—

2.00—

Inva

rian

ts

Monolingual BilingualLanguage Group

Monolingual BilingualLanguage Group

Inno

vatio

n C

apac

ity

1.00—

0.50—

0.00—

–0.50—

–1.00—

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM73

Black

68


These findings demonstrate that bilinguals exhibited greater innovative capac-ity and showed no significant differences with their monolingual counterparts inthe generative capacity. This finding contradicts the first hypothesis that was basedon the findings of the previous study (Kharkhurin, 2008), in which bilinguals out-performed their monolingual counterparts in the generative capacity, but not inthe innovative capacity.

The contradiction in the patterns of creative behavior could arise from the spe-cific economic, political, social, cultural, educational, and intellectual aspects ofthe environment in the samples used in these studies. As some creativity research-ers argue, these aspects can have a considerable influence on levels of creativepotential (e.g., Lubart, 1999; Lubart & Sternberg, 1998; Niu & Sternberg, 2001;Simonton, 1994).

In the same fashion, the performance differences between bilinguals andmonolinguals in the present study could be attributed to the factors not related tobilingualism per se. The effects of two of these factors were examined in subse-quent analyses.

The influence of non-bilingual factors on creative performanceIntelligence. On average, bilinguals obtained significantly greater IQ scores

than monolinguals (∆M = 20.32, t = 6.74, p < .001). Moreover, as previous analy-ses indicate, the IQ was found to significantly relate to a number of creativitymeasures. Therefore, to see the effect of the language group on creativity aboveand beyond the effect of intelligence, ANCOVAs were performed with languagegroup (bilingual, monolingual) as an independent variable, the IC and the invari-ants as dependent variables, and the IQ as a covariate. The analyses revealed asignificant effect of language group on the IC (F(1, 68) = 6.56, p < .05, η2 = .09),although the effect was weaker. However, the effect of language group on theinvariants disappeared.

Socioeconomic status. On average, bilinguals reported significantly greaterSES than monolinguals (∆M = .32, t = 2.38, p < .05). To see the effect of thelanguage group on creativity above and beyond the effect of the SES, ANCOVAswere performed with language group (bilingual, monolingual) as an independentvariable, the IC and the invariants as dependent variables, and the SES as acovariate. The analyses revealed the same significant effect of language groupon the IC (F(1, 65) = 15.93, p < .001, η2 = .20) and marginally significant effect oflanguage group on the invariants (F(1, 65) = 3.22, p = .08, η2 = .05).

Other factors. Needless to say that other factors not accounted for in the presentstudy could have a substantial effect on bilinguals’ greater creative behavior. Theeffect of biculturalism may mediate between the bilingualism and creativity.As Kharkhurin (2008) argues, bilinguals’ experience with two distinct sets ofcultural values and norms may result in an expansion of the conceptual systemas new connotations, even entirely new meanings, may develop throughacculturation. In turn, newly developed conceptual representations may promotenovel and creative ways of encoding experience, and subsequently increasecreative potential.

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM74

Black


69

Further, the exposure to the Western-oriented sociocultural environment of theUAE may also boost present study bilinguals’ greater creative performance. Bythe mere fact of residing in the UAE, bilingual participants may benefit from morefreedom of expression compared to their compatriots in Iran. The experiencewith the more liberal sociocultural environment may encourage them to find lesstraditional solutions to the ATTA problems (Kharkhurin, in press) as well as toemploy fewer invariants in the IAC test. On the other side, the proscribed ritualis-tic patterns of behavior reinforced by a low tolerance for deviant groups in Irancould encourage monolingual participants (residing in Iran) to provide rathertraditional responses (Kharkhurin & Samadpour Motalleebi, 2008).

Last but not least, as (Kharkhurin, in press) argues, personality factors suchas intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1983) could have an effect on bilinguals’ greatercreative performance (see Collins & Amabile, 1999, for an overview of the studiesshowing this relationship). The mere fact of changing the country of residencecould stem from the intrinsic motivation to look for better life conditions; the samefactor could facilitate bilinguals’ greater creative performance. In other words,motivational factor could mediate the effect of bilingualism on creativity.

CONCLUSIONThis study explored several research questions pertinent to two areas of cogni-

tive research: creativity and bilingualism. First, the study hints at the constructvalidity of two tests of creative thinking: the ATTA and the IAC. Both the divergentthinking test and the test of structured imagination seem to converge on the mea-sure of creative capacity. This finding provides a meaningful argument againstthe claim that divergent thinking tests are weakly related to other kinds of creativ-ity ratings (e.g., Hocevar, 1981). However, as the other findings of the study indi-cated, it is entirely possible that these tests converge on the measure of othertypes of cognitive abilities such as intelligence (e.g., Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999).Second, the ATTA was found to assess two distinct creative capacities, genera-tive and innovative. These capacities seem to be stable across different culturalgroups. The generative and innovative capacities are likely to overlap with diver-gent and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1967) respectively, which hints at thepossibility that the ATTA assesses both processes rather than divergent thinkingalone. Third, the capacity to violate the standard set of characteristics of a cat-egory was found to predict the creativity rating of independent judges. This find-ing suggests that “thinking outside the box” may be regarded by most people asbeing more creative. Fourth, bilingualism was found to facilitate the innovativecapacity, the ability to extract novel and unique ideas, but not the generativecapacity, the ability to generate and process a large number of unrelated ideas.Although the previous research in this area reported the opposite effect, thesefindings might not be interpreted as contradictory. Rather, the discrepancy in thefindings can be explained by the culture specific distinctions in the samples usedin both studies. One can speculate that bilinguals might show advantageson both generative and innovative thinking, but depending on the specificcircumstances, different cognitive mechanisms could be employed. That is,

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM75

Black

70


bilinguals’ advantages may be stipulated by various factors in cross-linguisticand cross-cultural development. Fifth, bilingualism was also found to facilitate anability to violate a standard set of the category properties. However, when con-trolled for the factors unrelated to bilingualism such as the IQ and the SES, theeffect virtually disappeared.

These findings, however, should be interpreted with caution as the bilingualand monolingual groups differed on a number of factors not accounted for in thisstudy. The specific economic, political, social, cultural, educational, and intellec-tual aspects of individuals’ development may have impact on their creative per-formance above and beyond the effect of bilingualism. Therefore, the study shouldbe considered as rather exploratory and require more controlled research.

REFERENCESAMABILE, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.ANDERSON, T. W., & RUBIN, H. (1949). Estimation of the Parameters of a Single Equation in a Complete

System of Stochastic Equations. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 20, 46-63.BIALYSTOK, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York:

Cambridge University Press.BIALYSTOK, E., CRAIK, F. I. M., GRADY, C., CHAU, W., ISHII, R., GUNJI, A., et al. (2005). Effect of

bilingualism on cognitive control in the Simon task: evidence from MEG. NeuroImage, 24(1), 40-49.CATTELL, R. B. (1973). Manual for the Cattell culture fair intelligence test. Champaign, IL: Institute for

Personality and Ability Testing.COLLINS, M. A., & AMABILE, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook

of creativity (pp. 297-312). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.FINKE, R. A., WARD, T. B., & SMITH, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and

applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.GETZELS, J. W., & CSIKSZENTMIHÁLYI, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem

finding in art. New York: Wiley.GOFF, K., & TORRANCE, E. P. (2002). Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic

Testing Service.GUILFORD, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.HOCEVAR, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment,

45(5), 450-464.KAPLAN, E., GOODGLASS, H., & WEINTRAUB, S. (1983). The Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia, PA:

Lea & Febiger.KASOF, J. (1997). Creativity and breadth of attention. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 303-315.KHARKHURIN, A. V. (2005). On the possible relationships between bilingualism, biculturalism and

creativity: A cognitive perspective. Unpublished dissertation, City University of New York, NewYork, NY.

KHARKHURIN, A. V. (2007). The role of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural experiences in bilinguals’divergent thinking. In I. Kecskes & L. Albertazzi (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of bilingualism (pp. 175-210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

KHARKHURIN, A. V. (2008). The effect of linguistic proficiency, age of second language acquisition, andlength of exposure to a new cultural environment on bilinguals’ divergent thinking. Bilingualism:Language & Cognition, 11(2), 225-243.

KHARKHURIN, A. V. (in press). Sociocultural differences in the relationship between bilingualism andcreative potential. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

KHARKHURIN, A. V., & SAMADPOUR MOTALLEEBI, S. N. (2008). The impact of culture on the creativepotential of American, Russian, and Iranian college students. Creativity Research Journal,20(4), 404-411.

KOESTLER, A. (1964). The act of creation. Lewiston, NY: Macmillan.

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM76

Black


71

KOZBELT, A., & DURMYSHEVA, Y. (2007). Understanding creativity judgments of invented alien creatures:The roles of invariants and other predictors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(4), 223-248.

LUBART, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.339-350). New York: Cambridge University Press.

LUBART, T. I. (2000). Models of the Creative Process: Past, Present and Future. Creativity ResearchJournal, 13(3-4), 295-308.

LUBART, T. I., & STERNBERG, R. J. (1998). Creativity across time and place: Life span and cross-culturalperspective. High Ability Studies, 9, 59-74.

MARSH, R. L., LANDAU, J. D., & HICKS, J. L. (1996). How examples may (and may not) constraincreativity. Memory & Cognition, 24(5), 669-680.

MARTINDALE, C. (1989). Personality, situation, and creativity. In J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.),Handbook of creativity (pp. 211-232). New York: Plenum Press.

MEDNICK, S. A., & MEDNICK, M. T. (1967). Examiner’s manual: Remote Associates Test. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

MENDELSOHN, G. A. (1976). Associative and attentional processes in creative performance. Journal ofPersonality, 44(2), 341-369.

MUMFORD, M. D., MOBLEY, M. I., UHLMAN, C. E., REITER-PALMON, R., & DOARES, L. M. (1991).Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91-122.

NIU, W., & STERNBERG, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation.International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 225-241.

PURCELL, A. T., & GERO, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17(4), 363-383.RASCH, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence

and attainment tests. Oxford, England: Nielsen & Lydiche.RICCIARDELLI, L. A. (1992). Creativity and bilingualism. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(4), 242-254.SIMONTON, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press.SMITH, S. M., WARD, T. B., & FINKE, R. A. (1995). The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA:

The MIT Press.SMITH, S. M., WARD, T. B., & SCHUMACHER, J. S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative

generations task. Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 837-845.STERNBERG, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.STERNBERG, R. J., & LUBART, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of

conformity. New York: Free Press.STERNBERG, R. J., & O’HARA, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of creativity (pp. 251-272). New York: Cambridge University Press.TORRANCE, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The

nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. (pp. 43-75). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

WARD, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation.Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 1-40.

WARD, T. B. (2007). Creative cognition as a window on creativity. Methods, 42(1), 28-37.WARD, T. B., PATTERSON, M. J., & SIFONIS, C. M. (2004). The Role of Specificity and Abstraction in

Creative Idea Generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 1-9.WARD, T. B., PATTERSON, M. J., SIFONIS, C. M., DODDS, R. A., & SAUNDERS, K. N. (2002). The role

of graded category structure in imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition, 30(2), 199-216.WARD, T. B., SMITH, S. M., & FINKE, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook

of creativity (pp. 189-212). New York: Cambridge University Press.WARD, T. B., SMITH, S. M., & VAID, J. (1997). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual

structures and processes. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Anatoliy V. Kharkhurin, Department of International Studies, American University of Sharjah, P.O. Box26666, Sharjah, UAE, Email: [email protected]

AUTHOR NOTEI thank Aaron Kozbelt for his help with the statistical analysis of the data, and Richard Gassan for theproofreading of the earlier draft of the manuscript. I also thank Pegah Foudeh, Shirin Samadpour Motalleebi,and Chehrnaz Bahramian for assistance in data collection and coding.

43-1-09.p65 2/27/2009, 7:10 PM77

Black

Download - The Role of Bilingualism in Creative Performance on Divergent Thinking and Invented Alien Creatures Tests

Top Related