Divergent Thinking

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 291 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Chris J Jackson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • how the five factor model and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory predict Divergent Thinking
    Personality and Individual Differences, 2014
    Co-Authors: Benjamin R. Walker, Chris J Jackson
    Abstract:

    Abstract From the Five Factor Model (FFM), we hypothesized openness to experience would positively predict Divergent Thinking. From revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST), we hypothesized revised Behavioural Approach System (r-BAS) would positively predict Divergent Thinking and revised Fight/Flight/Freezing System (r-FFFS) would negatively predict Divergent Thinking. Moreover, we hypothesized that r-FFFS would incrementally predict Divergent Thinking after controlling for significant FFM traits. Consistent with Elliot and Thrash (2010) , we also hypothesized an indirect effects model with r-BAS predicting Divergent Thinking through mastery. Using 130 participants, we found support or partial support for all hypotheses. Our results indicate that biological factors of personality associated with r-RST as well as openness to experience predict Divergent Thinking. The distinction between fear and anxiety in r-RST was also supported with fear and not anxiety negatively predicting Divergent Thinking.

  • How the Five Factor Model and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predict Divergent Thinking
    Personality and Individual Differences, 2014
    Co-Authors: Benjamin R. Walker, Chris J Jackson
    Abstract:

    From revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST), we hypothesized revised Behavioural Approach System (r-BAS) would positively predict Divergent Thinking and revised Fight/Flight/Freezing System (r-FFFS) would negatively predict Divergent Thinking. Moreover, we hypothesized that r-FFFS would incrementally predict Divergent Thinking after controlling for significant FFM traits. Consistent with Elliot and Thrash (2010), we also hypothesized an indirect effects model with r-BAS predicting Divergent Thinking through mastery. Using 130 participants, we found support or partial support for all hypotheses. Our results indicate that biological factors of personality associated with r-RST as well as openness to experience predict Divergent Thinking. The distinction between fear and anxiety in r-RST was also supported with fear and not anxiety negatively predicting Divergent Thinking. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd

Benjamin R. Walker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • how the five factor model and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory predict Divergent Thinking
    Personality and Individual Differences, 2014
    Co-Authors: Benjamin R. Walker, Chris J Jackson
    Abstract:

    Abstract From the Five Factor Model (FFM), we hypothesized openness to experience would positively predict Divergent Thinking. From revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST), we hypothesized revised Behavioural Approach System (r-BAS) would positively predict Divergent Thinking and revised Fight/Flight/Freezing System (r-FFFS) would negatively predict Divergent Thinking. Moreover, we hypothesized that r-FFFS would incrementally predict Divergent Thinking after controlling for significant FFM traits. Consistent with Elliot and Thrash (2010) , we also hypothesized an indirect effects model with r-BAS predicting Divergent Thinking through mastery. Using 130 participants, we found support or partial support for all hypotheses. Our results indicate that biological factors of personality associated with r-RST as well as openness to experience predict Divergent Thinking. The distinction between fear and anxiety in r-RST was also supported with fear and not anxiety negatively predicting Divergent Thinking.

  • How the Five Factor Model and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predict Divergent Thinking
    Personality and Individual Differences, 2014
    Co-Authors: Benjamin R. Walker, Chris J Jackson
    Abstract:

    From revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST), we hypothesized revised Behavioural Approach System (r-BAS) would positively predict Divergent Thinking and revised Fight/Flight/Freezing System (r-FFFS) would negatively predict Divergent Thinking. Moreover, we hypothesized that r-FFFS would incrementally predict Divergent Thinking after controlling for significant FFM traits. Consistent with Elliot and Thrash (2010), we also hypothesized an indirect effects model with r-BAS predicting Divergent Thinking through mastery. Using 130 participants, we found support or partial support for all hypotheses. Our results indicate that biological factors of personality associated with r-RST as well as openness to experience predict Divergent Thinking. The distinction between fear and anxiety in r-RST was also supported with fear and not anxiety negatively predicting Divergent Thinking. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd

Mark A. Runco - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • assessing associative distance among ideas elicited by tests of Divergent Thinking
    Creativity Research Journal, 2014
    Co-Authors: Selcuk Acar, Mark A. Runco
    Abstract:

    Tests of Divergent Thinking represent the most commonly used assessment of creative potential. Typically they are scored for total ideational output (fluency), ideational originality, and, sometimes, ideational flexibility. That scoring system provides little information about the underlying process and about the associations among ideas. It also does not really capture the key principle of Divergent Thinking, namely that ideas may be found when cognition explores new (Divergent) directions. The investigation reported here used 3 independent semantic networks, each computerized and previously validated, to quantify the distance between responses (ideas) to several tests of Divergent Thinking. These sources were WordNet (WN), Word Associations Network (WAN), and IdeaFisher (IF). Statistical analyses indicated that remote and close associations can be reliably measured when different sources of associative strength are used. Inter-item reliability (alpha coefficients) of what these networks had identified a...

  • The Neuroscience of Divergent Thinking
    Activitas Nervosa Superior, 2014
    Co-Authors: Mark A. Runco, Sureyya Yoruk
    Abstract:

    Creativity plays a role in innovation, development, and health. Recent research has used neuroscientific methods to study originality, novelty, insight, Divergent Thinking, and other processes related to creative mental activity. Findings indicate that both hemispheres are involved in Divergent Thinking, which is accompanied by both event-related increases and decreases in the neural activation. Divergent Thinking seems to be associated with high neural activation in the central, temporal, and parietal regions, indications of semantic processing and re-combination of semantically related information. Most of the research in this area has been done in the last 10 years, and very likely refining and standardizing DT testing and scoring will lead to additional insights about creativity.

  • Creative Abilities: Divergent Thinking
    Handbook of Organizational Creativity, 2012
    Co-Authors: Selcuk Acar, Mark A. Runco
    Abstract:

    Publisher Summary Many things influence organizational creativity. Some are social and literally organizational. The individuals who comprise it bring others to the organization. There is, of course, an interaction, with the social context having an impact on the performances and contributions of the individuals, as well as the organizational productivity and innovation in part being dependent on those same individuals. One important individual factor is ability. To a certain degree, then, organizational creativity depends on the abilities of the individuals within it. Creative ability is a broad label and category, however, and probably for that reason most research is much more focused. The research on Divergent Thinking is plentiful and says a great deal about the potential for creative accomplishment, both by individuals working alone and those in organizations. Quite a bit of the research reviewed in this chapter involves Divergent Thinking in social settings and organizations. There is research on the Divergent Thinking of managers, for example, as well as entrepreneurs and individuals studying business.

  • commentary Divergent Thinking is not synonymous with creativity
    Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 2008
    Co-Authors: Mark A. Runco
    Abstract:

    On several occasions I have suggested that a modified scientific method be used in studies of creativity (Runco, 1994a, 1999, 2006). This is a fairly contrarian suggestion because it implies a less-than-maximally objective perspective. Yet creativity will never be fully understood using the traditional scientific approach. This is in part because creativity requires originality, and the novelty that signifies originality is typically unpredictable, or at least not predictable with much precision. Perhaps more important for a modified scientific approach is the fact that creativity depends on affect, intuition, and other processes which cannot be accurately described using only objective terms. Yet at the same time, we should be as objective as possible. And although I am intrigued by generalizability theory, as described by Silvia, Winterstein, Willse, Barona, Cram, Hess, Martinez, and Richard (2008), I am concerned about their decision to use subjective scoring of Divergent Thinking tests. Their rationale is weak, to be blunt about it, and they have overlooked some critical research on the topic. In this Commentary, I could describe the attraction of generalizability theory, but Silvia et al. do a more than adequate job of that. So instead, I will try to fill some gaps in their review of the research on Divergent Thinking. I also have a few questions with several of their claims and methods. The most general problem is apparent in the title to their article. It implies that they can assess creativity with Divergent Thinking. I thought that idea was rejected about the same time as Woodstock—nearly 40 years ago. Wallach (1970) put it very well when he described Divergent Thinking tests as predictors rather than criteria of creative performance. I elaborated somewhat and defined Divergent Thinking tests as “estimates the potential for creative problem solving” (Runco, 1991b). This view, emphasizing tests as estimates and potential instead of guaranteed creative behavior, is very different from that which equates Divergent Thinking and actual creativity. This is not only a problem with the title. Silvia et al. (2008) also state that “a straightforward interpretation [is that] a creative response is a unique response” and “Divergent Thinking is the most promising candidate for the foundation of creative ability.” These quotations are both much too close to equating Divergent Thinking and creative ability, and to make matters worse the latter implies that one candidate for creative ability would be feasible and desirable. More realistic views describe creativity as a complex or syndrome (MacKinnon, 1965; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Runco, 2004). Part of the problem may be that Silvia et al. (2008) rely on earlier reviews and criticisms of Divergent Thinking. In fact, they cite the criticisms of Sawyer (2006) and Weisberg (2006) when they wrote that “it would be surprising, given the advances in psychometrics and assessment over the last 40 years, if the old ways were still the best ways.” If they do not like the old ways, why are they relying on old research? Sawyer (2006) and Weisberg (2006) are excellent scholars and their books both published in 2006. Yet, Sawyer (2006) contains two citations to empirical research on Divergent Thinking. Weisberg’s (2006) volume is very well researched, but it too does not capture any where near a representative sample of the more recent research on Divergent Thinking. It cites empirical studies on Divergent Thinking from 1953, 1965, 1972, 1974, 1980, 1987, 1999, and 2004. The first two of those could be disregarded because of their age, but they are classics by Guilford and Wallach and Kogan—and both support the validity of Divergent Thinking tests. The last two also clearly support the use of Divergent Thinking tests. The 1999 study is a reanalysis of Torrance’s longitudinal data, using structural equation modeling. It supported the validity of the traditional objective scoring system (fluency, originality, flexibility, elaboration)! In particular, “results suggest that just under half of the variance in adult creative achievement is explained by DT test scores, with the contribution of DT being more than 3 times that of intelligence quotients” (Plucker, 1999, p. 103). The 2004 study also supported the validity of Divergent Thinking, though it used the less well-known Urban test (TCT-DP). Quoting the conclusion from this study, “factorial validity and relations to consensual assessments supported convergent and discriminant validity of the TCT-DP. The TCT-DP also correlated significantly with other creative products—the individuality of photo essays and rated creativity of TAT stories” (Dollinger, Urban, & James, 2004, p. 35). Two of the other studies are not validation studies but did report correlations with various personality traits, including openness to experience (King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; McRae, 1987). Silvia et al. (2008) quote one other review on (a) the relationship of Divergent Thinking with intelligence, and (b) the predictive validity of Divergent Thinking tests. The first of these is a complicated issue because of differences among tests of Divergent Thinking and intelligence (Kim, 2005; Runco & Albert, 1986) and because the relationship is not a linear one (Guilford, 1986). At some levels of ability, the relationship is nonexistent, contrary to the quotation in Silvia et al.; there is discriminant validity. When there is a relationship between intelligence and Divergent Thinking, it is not of a magnitude that suggests that they are redundant, only that they are related. And this makes perfect sense, given theories of creativity and intelligence. Often some of the latter is necessary for the former. As for predictive validity, a slew of studies has Mark A. Runco, California State University, Fullerton, and the Norwegian School of Economics & Business Administration. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark Runco, CSUF, PO Box 6868, Fullerton, CA 92734 USA. E-mail: runco@fullerton.edu Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 2, No. 2, 93–96 1931-3896/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.93

  • Information, Experience, and Divergent Thinking: An Empirical Test
    Creativity Research Journal, 2006
    Co-Authors: Mark A. Runco, Gayle T. Dow, William Ray Smith
    Abstract:

    ABSTRACT: Divergent Thinking tests are often used to estimate the potential for creative problem solving. Scores on these tests may, however, reflect a kind of experiential bias. Similar biases once plagued IQ tests, the idea being that scores reflect the individual's background and information in long-term memory as much as ability per se. The investigation reported here attempted to assess the role of experience, knowledge, and memory in Divergent Thinking by comparing 2 kinds of tasks. One was a standard Divergent Thinking task (e.g., "list uses for a shoe," "uses for a brick," "uses for a newspaper"). The other allowed a number of responses but required that the examinee produce factual, knowledge- based responses. A second objective here was to compare standard- and knowledge-based ideation with tasks that shared 1 domain (e.g., transportation) with tasks that did not share a domain. Results indicated that there was a statistically significant correlation between the 2 types of tasks but only when th...

David A. Gansler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • hemispheric connectivity and the visual spatial Divergent Thinking component of creativity
    Brain and Cognition, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dana W. Moore, Rafeeque A. Bhadelia, Rebecca L. Billings, Carl E. Fulwiler, Kenneth M. Heilman, Kenneth M. J. Rood, David A. Gansler
    Abstract:

    Background/hypothesis: Divergent Thinking is an important measurable component of creativity. This study tested the postulate that Divergent Thinking depends on large distributed inter- and intra-hemispheric networks. Although preliminary evidence supports increased brain connectivity during Divergent Thinking, the neural correlates of this characteristic have not been entirely specified. It was predicted that visuospatial Divergent Thinking would correlate with right hemisphere white matter volume (WMV) and with the size of the corpus callosum (CC). Methods: Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analyses and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) were completed among 21 normal right-handed adult males. Results: TTCT scores correlated negatively with the size of the CC and were not correlated with right or, incidentally, left WMV. Conclusions: Although these results were not predicted, perhaps, as suggested by Bogen and Bogen (1988), decreased callosal connectivity enhances hemispheric specialization, which benefits the incubation of ideas that are critical for the Divergent-Thinking component of creativity, and it is the momentary inhibition of this hemispheric independence that accounts for the illumination that is part of the innovative stage of creativity. Alternatively, decreased CC size may reflect more selective developmental pruning, thereby facilitating efficient functional connectivity.

  • Hemispheric connectivity and the visual–spatial Divergent-Thinking component of creativity
    Brain and cognition, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dana W. Moore, Rafeeque A. Bhadelia, Rebecca L. Billings, Carl E. Fulwiler, Kenneth M. Heilman, Kenneth M. J. Rood, David A. Gansler
    Abstract:

    Divergent Thinking is an important measurable component of creativity. This study tested the postulate that Divergent Thinking depends on large distributed inter- and intra-hemispheric networks. Although preliminary evidence supports increased brain connectivity during Divergent Thinking, the neural correlates of this characteristic have not been entirely specified. It was predicted that visuospatial Divergent Thinking would correlate with right hemisphere white matter volume (WMV) and with the size of the corpus callosum (CC). Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analyses and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) were completed among 21 normal right-handed adult males. TTCT scores correlated negatively with the size of the CC and were not correlated with right or, incidentally, left WMV. Although these results were not predicted, perhaps, as suggested by Bogen and Bogen (1988), decreased callosal connectivity enhances hemispheric specialization, which benefits the incubation of ideas that are critical for the Divergent-Thinking component of creativity, and it is the momentary inhibition of this hemispheric independence that accounts for the illumination that is part of the innovative stage of creativity. Alternatively, decreased CC size may reflect more selective developmental pruning, thereby facilitating efficient functional connectivity.

Richard W. Hass - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Semantic search during Divergent Thinking
    Cognition, 2017
    Co-Authors: Richard W. Hass
    Abstract:

    Divergent Thinking, as a method of examining creative cognition, has not been adequately analyzed in the context of modern cognitive theories. This article casts Divergent Thinking responding in the context of theories of memory search. First, it was argued that Divergent Thinking tasks are similar to semantic fluency tasks, but are more constrained, and less well structured. Next, response time distributions from 54 participants were analyzed for temporal and semantic clustering. Participants responded to two prompts from the alternative uses test: uses for a brick and uses for a bottle, for two minutes each. Participants' cumulative response curves were negatively accelerating, in line with theories of search of associative memory. However, results of analyses of semantic and temporal clustering suggested that clustering is less evident in alternative uses responding compared to semantic fluency tasks. This suggests either that Divergent Thinking responding does not involve an exhaustive search through a clustered memory trace, but rather that the process is more exploratory, yielding fewer overall responses that tend to drift away from close associates of the Divergent Thinking prompt.

  • Tracking the dynamics of Divergent Thinking via semantic distance: Analytic methods and theoretical implications.
    Memory & cognition, 2016
    Co-Authors: Richard W. Hass
    Abstract:

    Divergent Thinking has often been used as a proxy measure of creative Thinking, but this practice lacks a foundation in modern cognitive psychological theory. This article addresses several issues with the classic Divergent-Thinking methodology and presents a new theoretical and methodological framework for cognitive Divergent-Thinking studies. A secondary analysis of a large dataset of Divergent-Thinking responses is presented. Latent semantic analysis was used to examine the potential changes in semantic distance between responses and the concept represented by the Divergent-Thinking prompt across successive response iterations. The results of linear growth modeling showed that although there is some linear increase in semantic distance across response iterations, participants high in fluid intelligence tended to give more distant initial responses than those with lower fluid intelligence. Additional analyses showed that the semantic distance of responses significantly predicted the average creativity rating given to the response, with significant variation in average levels of creativity across participants. Finally, semantic distance does not seem to be related to participants' choices of their own most creative responses. Implications for cognitive theories of creativity are discussed, along with the limitations of the methodology and directions for future research.

  • Feasibility of online Divergent Thinking assessment
    Computers in Human Behavior, 2015
    Co-Authors: Richard W. Hass
    Abstract:

    The project examined creative Thinking in online settings.The goal was to aid creative Thinking research by increasing ecological validity.Online administration had no detrimental affect on Divergent Thinking.Imposition of time limits effectively reduced individual differences in time-on-task, fluency, and originality.Divergent Thinking was stable across two different online samples. Two studies explored whether assessment of creative Thinking is feasible using web-based methods and how participants reacted to the imposition of time constraints in online settings. Sixty-five participants (Study 1) completed a verbal fluency task and a Divergent Thinking task, half of the participants doing so over the Internet. Online administration did not affect originality, but led to slightly fewer responses overall. This demonstrated that online administration of creative Thinking is indeed feasible and reliable, though steps must be taken to ensure participants exhaust all possible responses. To test the effect of time limits on responses, 84 participants (Study 2) completed a verbal fluency task and three Divergent Thinking tasks online, half of the participants doing so under time pressure (3min). There were significant interactions between time limits and task content for both time-on-task and fluency variables, but the task type was the dominant force in the varying fluency and time-on-task scores. Originality was not significantly affected by time limits, but did vary across tasks. In all cases the results illustrate that assessment of Divergent Thinking, as a proxy of creative Thinking, is feasible using online methods. Implications for future work in this area are discussed.