Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review.

Abdulla, Ahmed M.; Paek, Sue Hyeon; Cramond, Bonnie; Runco, Mark A.

doi:10.1037/aca0000194

Cited by 100 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is PROBLEM FINDING, DIVERGENT THINKING AND EVALUATIVE SKILLS 5 why almost all models for creative processes include PF as a separate step for creative problem solving (e.g., Isaksen et al, 2000;Merrifield et al, 1962;Parnes, 1967;Wallas, 1926). PF's importance in this regard has also been attested by a recent meta-analytic review on the relationship between PF and creativity (Abdulla et al, 2020), where the results showed that PF and creativity were significantly correlated (r= .22). Although this effect size is considered small, it is similar to the effect size reported by Kim (2008) in another metaanalysis on the relationship between creativity and divergent thinking (DT).…”

Section: ___________________mentioning

confidence: 85%

Problem Finding and Evaluative Thinking among Gifted and Nongifted Students

Alabbasi¹,

Hafsyan²,

Runco³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have explored the individual differences, including differences in IQ, higher order thinking skills, and divergent thinking (DT), between gifted and nongifted students. However, little is known about individual differences between gifted and nongifted students in terms of problem finding (PF) ability. Moreover, previous works on gifted students have never explored the association between PF and evaluative thinking. This study examined individual differences in the PF abilities of gifted (N = 175) and nongifted students (N = 188) and tested the relationship between PF and evaluative thinking, which include the individual ability for self-reflection and the ability to evaluate problems.Keywords: gifted, nongifted, problem finding, divergent thinking, evaluative thinking

show abstract

Section: ___________________mentioning

confidence: 85%

Problem Finding and Evaluative Thinking among Gifted and Nongifted Students

Alabbasi¹,

Hafsyan²,

Runco³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While intuitive thinking about creativity sees the creative process as an act of problem solving (Guilford, 1967), an underappreciated aspect of creativity is problem finding (Abdulla et al, 2020;Guilford, 1950;Runco, 1994), in other words a determination of which problems within a given domain are worthy of being addressed to begin with. Sternberg (1988), in talking about the renowned experiments in the history of psychology, argued that "[p]roblem selection was far more important than problem solution in determining the classic role of these experiments" (p. 133).…”

Section: Domain and Time-framementioning

confidence: 99%

The neural basis of creative production: A cross-modal ALE meta-analysis

Brown

Kim

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the central questions about the cognitive neuroscience of creativity is the extent to which creativity depends on either domain-specific or domain-general mechanisms. To address this question, we carried out two parallel activation likelihood estimation meta-analyses of creativity: 1) a motoric analysis that combined studies across five domains of creative production (verbalizing, music, movement, writing, and drawing), and 2) an analysis of the Alternate Uses divergent-thinking task. All experiments contained a contrast between a creative task and a matched non-creative or less-creative task that controlled for the sensorimotor demands of task performance. The activation profiles of the two meta-analyses were non-overlapping, but both pointed to a domain-specific interpretation in which creative production is, at least in part, an enhancement of sensorimotor brain areas involved in non-creative production. The most concordant areas of activation in the motoric meta-analysis were high-level motor areas such as the pre-supplementary motor area and inferior frontal gyrus that interface motor planning and executive control, suggesting a means of uniting domain-specificity and -generality in creative production.

show abstract

“…Yet, scientific thinking depends very heavily on the problem-finding, creative phase of research. Moreover, diverse recent models of problem-solving place substantial emphasis on problem finding ( Abdulla and Cramond 2018 ; Abdulla et al 2018 ; Arlin 1975 ; Arlin 1975–1976 ; Mumford and McIntosh 2017 ; Mumford et al ( 1991 , 2012 ); Simonton 2004 ). Our goal, therefore, was to place greater emphasis on this problem-finding phase in the current research.…”

Section: Theoretical Basismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relation of Scientific Creativity and Evaluation of Scientific Impact to Scientific Reasoning and General Intelligence

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many nations, grades and standardized test scores are used to select students for programs of scientific study. We suggest that the skills that these assessments measure are related to success in science, but only peripherally in comparison with two other skills, scientific creativity and recognition of scientific impact. In three studies, we investigated the roles of scientific creativity and recognition of scientific impact on scientific thinking. The three studies described here together involved 219 students at a selective university in the Northeast U.S. Participants received assessments of scientific creativity and recognition of scientific impact as well as a variety of previously used assessments measuring scientific reasoning (generating alternative hypotheses, generating experiments, drawing conclusions) and the fluid aspect of general intelligence (letter sets, number series). They also provided scores from either or both of two college-admissions tests-the SAT and the ACT-as well as demographic information. Our goal was to determine whether the new tests of scientific impact and scientific creativity correlated and factored with the tests of scientific reasoning, fluid intelligence, both, or neither. We found that our new measures tapped into aspects of scientific reasoning as we previously have studied it, although the factorial composition of the test on recognition of scientific impact is less clear than that of the test of scientific creativity. We also found that participants rated high-impact studies as more scientifically rigorous and practically useful than low-impact studies, but also generally as less creative, probably because their titles/abstracts were seemingly less novel for our participants. Replicated findings across studies included the correlation of Letter Sets with Number Series (both measures of fluid intelligence) and the correlation of Scientific Creativity with Scientific Reasoning.

show abstract

Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review.

Cited by 100 publications

References 78 publications

Problem Finding and Evaluative Thinking among Gifted and Nongifted Students

Problem Finding and Evaluative Thinking among Gifted and Nongifted Students

The neural basis of creative production: A cross-modal ALE meta-analysis

The Relation of Scientific Creativity and Evaluation of Scientific Impact to Scientific Reasoning and General Intelligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About