Relations of creative responses to working time and instructions.

Christensen, P. R.; Guilford, J. P.; Wilson, Robert

doi:10.1037/h0045461

Cited by 241 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The two subjective scoring methods performed well, but the uniqueness We should point out that fluency scores have a different meaning in our study than in studies that did not instruct people to be creative (e.g., Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Telling people be creative causes fewer responses (Christensen et al, 1957;Harrington, 1975), probably because people use quality-over-quantity strategies instead of mere-quantity strategies. Thus, the scores represent the number of responses people generated while trying to generate creative responses, not the number of responses people could generate when trying to generate as many as possible.…”

Section: Was Creativity Distinct From Fluency?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And when using subjective ratings, researchers are faced with deciding how many raters are necessary to obtain reliable scores. To date, research on divergent thinking has used a wide range of raters, such as 1 rater (Wilson et al, 1953), 2 raters (Christensen et al, 1957;Silvia & Phillips, 2004), 3 raters (Grohman et al, 2006;Harrington, 1975;Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001), and 4 raters (Hocevar, 1979b). Research using the consensual assessment technique has a wide range as well, such as 5 raters (Carson et al, 2005), 13 raters , and 20 raters (Amabile, 1982).…”

Section: Reliability Numbers Of Raters and Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So today people will work on a few different creativity tasks, which look at how people think creatively.‖ We think that it is essential to instruct people to try to be creative, for three reasons. First, instructing people to be creative increases the creativity of their responses (e.g., Christensen et al, 1957;Runco, Illies, & Eisenman, 2005), which will raise the ceiling of creativity in the sample and hopefully expand the variance in creativity scores. Second, instructing people to be creative makes the scores more valid indicators of individual differences.…”

Section: Education (8%) and Psychology (8%) Divergent Thinking Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the earliest modern creativity research, Guilford's research team used raters to score some of their divergent thinking tasks. To assess the cleverness component of creativity, Guilford had people generate plot titles, which were then scored on 1-5 scales by 2 raters (Christensen, Guilford, & Wilson, 1957) or on 0-6 scales by 3 raters (Wilson et al, 1953). To assess the remoteness of association component of creativity, people generated responses to a consequences task; the responses were scored on a 1-3 -remoteness‖ scale (Christensen et al, 1957).…”

Section: Uniqueness Scoring Penalizes Large Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess the cleverness component of creativity, Guilford had people generate plot titles, which were then scored on 1-5 scales by 2 raters (Christensen, Guilford, & Wilson, 1957) or on 0-6 scales by 3 raters (Wilson et al, 1953). To assess the remoteness of association component of creativity, people generated responses to a consequences task; the responses were scored on a 1-3 -remoteness‖ scale (Christensen et al, 1957). Since Guilford, many researchers have used subjective ratings of responses to divergent thinking tasks, such as scoring each response on a 1-5 scale (Harrington, 1975) or a 1-7 scale (Grohman, Wodniecka, & K#usak, 2006), scoring responses as high or low in quality (Harrington, Block, & Block, 1983), and scoring the full set of responses on a 1-7 scale (Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001).…”

Section: Uniqueness Scoring Penalizes Large Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods.

Silvia

Winterstein

Willse

et al. 2008

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

708

855

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Divergent thinking is central to the study of individual differences in creativity, but the traditional scoring systems (assigning points for infrequent responses and summing the points) face well-known problems. After critically reviewing past scoring methods, this article describes a new approach to assessing divergent thinking and appraises its reliability and validity. In our new Top 2 scoring method, participants complete a divergent thinking task and then circle the two responses that they think are their most creative responses. Raters then evaluate the responses on a 5-point scale. Regarding reliability, a generalizability analysis showed that subjective ratings of unusual-uses tasks and instances tasks yield dependable scores with only 2 or 3 raters. Regarding validity, a latent-variable study (n = 226) predicted divergent thinking from the Big Five factors and their higher-order traits (Plasticity and Stability). Over half of the variance in divergent thinking could be explained by dimensions of personality. The article presents instructions for measuring divergent thinking with the new method.

show abstract

Section: Was Creativity Distinct From Fluency?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliability Numbers Of Raters and Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Education (8%) and Psychology (8%) Divergent Thinking Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uniqueness Scoring Penalizes Large Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uniqueness Scoring Penalizes Large Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods.

Silvia

Winterstein

Willse

et al. 2008

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

708

855

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The effects of instructions and response time on divergent thinking test scores

et al. 1971

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What a test measures is a function not only of the items on the test, but also of the testing conditions. This study examined the effects of varying instructions and response time in testing for divergent thinking (DT) on both the level of performance and the intercorrelations of D T subscores with each other and with I&. Christensen, Guilford, and Wilson (1957) varied the instructions and the time allowed for completing D T tasks. They found that subjects told to "be clever" responded with more high quality, clever responses, but fewer total responses, than subjects not so instructed. When more time was allowed the rate and level of cleverness remained relatively constant, while the remoteness and uncommonness of the responses increased. hqanske and Davis (1968) extended the findings of Christensen, Guilford, and Wilson (1957) by asking some subjects to be "original," others to be "practical," a third group to be "original and practical," and a fourth to be "wild." Control subjects were given nonspecific directions. The responses of subjects instructed to be original were rated by judges to be more original but less practical than the control group. The subjects instructed to be practical gave practical and common responses. The subjects instructed to be both original and practical gave responses similar to those of the control group in originality and practicality. However, they gave fewer total responses than the control group. When subjects were told to be wild, they gave the largest total number of responses. There was a moderate tendency for responses occurring later in the order of emission to be rated as more original than those emitted earlier.Wallach and Kogan (1965) reviewed the literature on the relationship between D T and intelligence and concluded that there was no clear evidence of a unitary creativity factor as measured by the usual array of D T tasks. Further, the relatively high correlations between I& and D T measures did not allow the interpretation that I& and DT (as measured) are orthogonal. They studied the effects of removing evaluative stress from D T measures by testing individuals in a game-like atmosphere. Under conditions of low evaluative stress most of the intercorrelations among the D T tests were significant and substantial, and the correlations of D T measures with I& measures tended to be low and not significant. Thus, changes in the DT testing situation resulted in changes in the relationships among DT measures and between D T and IQ.Ward (1966), Boersma and O'Bryan (1968), Williams and Fleming (in press), McGuire, Hindsman, King, and Jennings (196l), Clark, Veldman, and Thorpe (1965), Kogan and Morgan (1967), Connett and Lyon (1969), and Wallach and Wing (1969) have provided evidence supporting the Wallach and Kogan finding that under conditions of low evaluative stress, creativity measures (expecially measures of ideational fluency and uniqueness) correlate highly with each other and tend to be statistically independent of I&. From the literature it is clear that changes in ...

show abstract

Innovative ideas desire earlier communication: Exploring reverse serial‐order effect and liberating cognitive constraint for organizational problem‐solving

Ahn

Swol

et al. 2023

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The serial‐order effect wherein originality increases over time is one of the most robust findings in modern psychology. This effect, found in either individual or group sessions, is based on associative and spreading activation mechanisms: Mental association takes place in temporal sequential order from commonly (closely) to unusually (distantly) related semantic concepts stored in long‐term memory. Thus, data from previous studies might suggest that, in collective problem‐solving, we endure long meetings and pay closer attention to ideas presented toward the end of the meeting. However, members in innovative organizations have been reported to typically generate ideas on their own before group brainstorming. We hypothesized that in the subsequent group brainstorming session members would state their most appealing ideas first due to impression management. Our results from the individual‐then‐group hybrid brainstorming paradigm show that idea quality during the group session peaks early and then decays, in terms of both the number of high‐quality ideas produced and the proportion of ideas that are high‐quality. This “reverse” serial‐order effect implies that meeting for a reasonably brief time and looking into ideas shared early during the meeting may lead to better decisions—if individuals generated ideas prior to the meeting. We also found that flexibility (the rate at which new idea categories were introduced) dropped rapidly, but at a certain point of time, it stopped decreasing. This potentially suggests that extended group interaction after individual idea generation could bring greater idea diversity rather than higher overall quality. In addition, we found that the updated, cognitively constrained organizational norm for brainstorming, which likely narrows the scope of search, led to greater idea quantity (fluency), quality, and flexibility than the traditional, unconstrained norm. Our work challenges the traditional application of spreading activation theory to interpersonal, group, or organizational settings and calls for attention to the specific communicative processes of problem‐solving and decision‐making in question.

show abstract

Relations of creative responses to working time and instructions.

Cited by 241 publications

References 5 publications

Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods.

Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods.

The effects of instructions and response time on divergent thinking test scores

Innovative ideas desire earlier communication: Exploring reverse serial‐order effect and liberating cognitive constraint for organizational problem‐solving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About