Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 1
Running head: VERBAL AND VISUAL SKILLS IN CREATIVE THINKING
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking: A Test of the Independence Hypothesis
Lilibeth Giraldo
University of Florida
Dr. Ira Fischler, Chair
Lise Abrams, Committee Member
Andreas Keil, Committee Member
IRB approval #: 2009-U-1246
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 2
Abstract
This research study was designed to examine the relationship between both visual and verbal
divergent thinking and creative performance. The sample consisted of 123 undergraduates from
the University of Florida. Verbal and visual divergent thinking were measured by using the
Alternative Meanings Test and the Alternative Uses Test, respectively. Creative performance
was measured with the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA) and two self-report
questionnaires: the Creative Behavior Inventory and the Creative Domain Questionnaire. Results
analyzed through Pearson product-moment correlation indicated a number of significant
relationships within verbal and visual tasks and creativity, as well as between them. A pattern of
weak correlations across visual and verbal dimensions suggests that an independent relationship
exists between the two dimensions in relation to divergent thinking. Unexpectedly, the analysis
shows that the Alternative Uses Tests is more related to the verbal component of the ATTA than
the visual. The findings of this study reaffirm that creativity is a complex mental function and is
contingent upon many psychological variables.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 3
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking: A Test of the Independence Hypothesis
It is generally accepted that the world is quickly becoming technologically sophisticated
as computer science modernizes the way we live. But while technology has improved lives in
some ways, it has also made life more difficult in other ways. For example, even though
computers make it easy to store and share data, they also require us to acquire computer skills.
Along with modern technology’s increased opportunities comes increased demand.
With such increasing complexity in global communications, the ability to adapt through
creative thinking is more important now than ever before. Seen in this context, creativity grants
flexibility and effectiveness to those who possess it. Runco (2004) states, “the flexibility of
creative persons is what gives them the capacity to cope with the advances, opportunities,
technologies, and changes that are a part of our current day-to-day lives” (p.658). Creativity may
be considered a legacy of the evolutionary process, which has historically allowed for the rapid
adaption to changing environments.
The measurement of individual creative ability is arguably the most criticized area
requiring agreement in the creative thinking literature, and yet it is the area in which establishing
such agreement is most difficult (Kilgour, 2006). One of the primary difficulties noted in the
literature is “the lack of an instrument that can accurately measure, with any degree of internal
validity, what is commonly regarded to be a complex construct” (Kilgour, 2006, p. 80).
Although creativity may be a subjective construct that we cannot evaluate independently
of the domain, we may be able to objectively measure a person's creative thinking
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 4
processes even though some may argue that this process itself is still poorly understood
despite considerable debate on the subject (Kilgour, 2006, p.79).
This study’s aims are twofold: (1.) to evaluate performance on several cognitive tasks as
means of measuring processes said be involved in creative activities using divergent thinking;
and (2.) to explore the relationship between these performances and three measures of creative
achievement – one, a popular behavioral test of creativity created by Torrance; and two
questionnaires pertaining to a person’s beliefs and knowledge about his creative abilities.
Because of the fundamental importance of the distinction between visual-spatial skills
and verbal-linguistic skills in cognitive psychology, an important focus of the present study will
be to assess whether these two creative domains are independent of one another or if the two
domains cross over. In addition to assessing divergent flexibility in the verbal and visual-spatial
domains, another critical element of this process is the use of neuropsychological tests that will
assess key manifestations of uniqueness and talent which are thought to be important in creative
activities as well as visual-spatial, verbal, and imagery skills. The central hypothesis is that the
contribution of verbal and visual abilities to creative thinking and achievement are significantly
independent.
Literature Review
Creativity is one of the most difficult mental functions to study due to our limited
understanding of the term creative. While there is no consensus for a concrete definition of the
word creativity, it has traditionally been considered a multifaceted phenomenon which results in
the productions of new and useful ideas, rather than as a unitary, individual component of
cognition, personality, or perception (Kilgour, 2006; Noppe & Gallagher, 1977). One reason
creativity is multifaceted is that “several factors contribute to its development and expression”
(Basadur, Taggar & Pringle, 1999, p.77). Runco (1993) classified these factors (cognitive,
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 5
motivational, and attitudinal) as personal, social, and environmental (Basadur, Taggarm &
Pringle, 1999). Bechtereva and Nagornova (2007) define creativity as “the ability of an
individual to generate new, original ideas, to deviate in thinking from stereotypes and traditional
patterns, and to solve problem situations quickly” (p.11).
Overall, creativity can be defined as the ability to comprehend, develop and articulate
novel relationships in a systematic fashion. Some studies argue that creativity is the most
important and valued aspect of the human mind since it is responsible for the emergence of
human intellectual accomplishments. Some have even claimed that it is the creative potential an
individual possesses that distinguishes humans from non-humans (Sethy, 2009).
Psychologist Graham Wallas introduced one of the earliest models of the creative
process. In his work Art of Thought, Wallas (1926) as well as Helmholtz (1826) proposed that
creative thinking proceeds through four phases. These phases include: preparation (the
exploration of problem’s dimensions), incubation (the internalization of the process into the
unconscious mind), illumination (the movement of the creative idea from preconscious into
conscious awareness), and verification (application of the idea) (Shuell, 1990).
The preparation phase allows the individual to obtain the skills needed to perform
creatively. Creative people need ideas before they can participate in the act of creative
production and they need to be able to understand the problems, which are used to generate
novel ideas. Thus, as they move into the incubation phase, creative individuals proceed to
consciously, or unconsciously, construct new ideas in an attempt to recognize and comprehend
unique associations. Next, the illumination phase is characterized by "Eureka" experiences in
which a clear answer to a complex problem seems to come to mind in a sudden and seemingly
random fashion. And finally, in an attempt to test their hypothesis, creative individuals, like
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 6
researchers, apply their ideas to real-world settings—often in the form of experiments—in the
verification phase (Heilman, Nadeau & Beversdorf, 2003).
The concepts of incubation and illumination have generated much disagreement
(Runco & Pritzker, 1999). For instance, Weisberg (1986) argued that “creativity does not
typically require great leaps, and the procedures that lead to many great encounters and
discoveries might not be a series of subconscious steps, but rather conscious incubation”
(Heilman, Nadeau & Beversdorf, 2003; Welling, 2007).
A fundamental process in creativity (Williams, 2000), divergent thinking can be defined
in many ways. Runco (1986) provides an expansive one: “Divergent thinking ability is not
equivalent to creative ability, but it is indicative of the potential for creative performance” (p.
346). This perspective contends that divergent thinking is related to creativity and constitutes an
important aspect of individual creativity. Williams (2000) states that “effective creative problem
solving requires the generation of varied and diverging potential solutions, and divergent
thinking helps individuals identify interesting problems and creative ways to implement
solutions” (p. 187). As Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) noted, divergent thinking “has
long been considered the cognitive key to creativity and has continued to be a major
consideration in creativity research” (p. 298). Divergent thinking, which is a thought process
used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, is associated with
creativity. Divergent thinking distinguishes creative problem solving from other kinds of
problem solving in two ways: novel and useful ideas. The individual cognitive processes
underlying originality and appropriateness were first introduced by Guilford in the 1960's under
the terms divergent and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1966). But despite the variety of
perspectives on the matter, most researchers are convinced that creativity and divergent thinking
have an indissoluble connection (Williams, 2000).
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 7
Cognitive Research on Creativity
Creativity is an essential activity of human information processing. Cognitive
psychologists generally agree that it includes two defining features: “The ability to produce work
that is both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning
task constraints)” (Dietrich, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999, p. 3). Research shows that novelty
is the most important aspect by which an individual’s act of creativity can be judged (Runco,
2004). Research on problem solving, creative perception and knowledge attainment has replaced
the understanding that the creative action is a mystical or even mysterious occurrence (Dietrich,
2004; Simonton, 2009). The cognitive research on creativity is quite diverse. Researchers have
identified a number of cognitive processes that may relate to creativity (Woodman, Sawyer &
Griffin, 1993). Memory, attention, and knowledge include a few of the basic cognitive abilities
that have been considered. The use of attention seems to be one of the most important abilities
in creative reasoning. Wallach (1970), for example, suggested that “‘wide’ attention deployment
facilitates the discovery of remote and original ideas” (Runco, 2004, p. 667). Conversely, Smith,
Michael, and Hocevar (1990) proposed that “evaluation and pressure often lead directly to
anxiety and alienated attention, and that this challenges creative thinking because attention is
focused on a stressor rather than to the task or problem at hand” (Runco, 2004, p. 667).
Also playing a role in creative reasoning is the concept of Knowledge. For instance,
“declarative and factual knowledge may supply the individual with choices when he or she is
problem solving, but at the same time, they can in some cases constrain creative reasoning if the
individual looks only to acquire knowledge rather than generate original concepts and
associations” (Runco, 2006). For example, Torrance, Glover, Ronning and Reynolds (1989)
explained that having a large knowledge base about a particular focus (i.e. counseling therapy)
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 8
reduces the specialist’s (i.e. therapist) openness to new information and may serve to constrain
the specialist from acquiring new methods of counseling.
The second component of knowledge in creative cognition involves strategies which
depend on practical knowledge and which are often used to solve essential problems. They are
among the most teachable features of thinking artistically (Runco, 2004). In addition, field
dependence shows a strong link to creativity. People with high field independence are able to
examine the pertinent facets of a given situation without having their attention diverted by the
less relevant facets, whereas field-dependent individuals have a hard time separating less
important aspects from important ones (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).
Guilford, in his work on the structure of intelligence, has identified the cognitive
processes of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration as essential to divergent production.
Guilford (1983) termed these abilities, which are pertinent to creative talent, as transformation
abilities. These abilities allow the individual to alter or modify what one knows into new patterns
or configurations. Many researchers including Torrance have used Guilford’s transformation
abilities. Most of Guilford's research is centered on recognizing cognitive processes that make up
the two categories of abilities—divergent thinking and transformation—and on developing tests
for these abilities (Russ, 1993).
“Divergent production has long been considered the key cognitive factor to creativity and
has continued to be a major consideration in creativity research” (Williams, 2000, p. 187). Since
Guilford's research into the concept of divergent thinking (1968), most researchers have
recognized the importance of recombination of ideas as fundamental to the process of creative
thinking.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 9
Measurements of Divergent Thinking
According to Runco (1986), creative cognition can often be studied through divergent
thinking tests. Divergent production asks from an individual as many suitable responses as
possible, whereas convergent thinking demands a single accurate response. Some tests are open-
ended assessments which are scored according to their abundance or lack of the following
features: fluency (the number of concepts or answers given), originality (the novelty and
distinctiveness of the concepts or answers given), and flexibility (the variability or assortment of
the concepts or answers given). These tests should be viewed merely as estimates of the potential
for creative thinking; however, their usefulness as predictors remains controversial (Runco,
1986).
The concept of divergent thinking is characterized in different ways by different scientific
researchers. For instance, Guilford (1966) and Torrance relate the expression divergent thinking
to fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality. Wallach and Kogan’s (1965) theory, similar
to the work of Guilford, relates divergent thinking and creativity test scores to two dimensions:
fluency and originality (Hocevar, 1980). Seddon (1983) explains that measures of originality and
flexibility have been criticized because they are typically confounded with fluency (e.g., Clark &
Mirels, 1970). In addition, divergent thinking tests have been widely criticized as measures of
creativity. Wallach and Kogan (1965) argue that the validity of these tests is remarkably
influenced by the conditions under which they are performed. Sternberg (1985) also refused to
use divergent thinking tests as a measure of creativity because he felt that “such tests capture, at
best, only the most trivial aspects of creativity” (p.618). But researchers are still at the forefront
of studying creativity, so studying trivial aspects is what it takes to move forward from
generalizations to more discriminative aspects of creativity.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 10
The relationship between creative reasoning and intelligence has also been controversial.
Kogan (1983) explains that “research has supported the concept that creative abilities are
separate abilities from what we define as intelligence” (Russ, 1993, p.5). Most studies find low
to moderate positive correlations between creativity tests and intelligence tests (Hocevar, 1980;
Runco, 2004). Guilford (1962, 1966, 1968) suggested a three-dimensional model called the
Structure of Intellect, built upon his years of research in the fields of intelligence, originality, and
performance measurement.
Guilford's dimensions are (1.) contents, or types of information that can be differentiated
(e.g., graphical, auditory, figurative, semantic, behavioral); (2.) operations, or the different kinds
of intellectual processes that can take place (e.g., evaluation, convergent production, divergent
production, memory, cognitive reasoning); and (3.) products, those particular intellectual
productions of processing (e.g., components, classes, relationships, transformations,
associations) (Wetherell, 1996). Guilford (1968) also suggests that “this comprehensive three-
dimensional model has been developed to put rationality into the picture” (p.618). Guilford
(1983) wanted to produce assessments for each combination of the possibilities among these
three dimensions, thinking it reasonable that a person could be high on some of these abilities
while being low on others. The model has been described as a “cubical affair, its three
dimensions illustrating ways in which the abilities differ from one another” (Guilford, 1968,
p.620). He argued that this taxonomic model could even lead to the discovery of many abilities
not suspected before (Guilford, 1968).
Guilford, Fruchter, and Kelly (1959) explain that as the number of primary abilities
discovered increased, it became important to find some unifying principles that would make
comprehension of the total list easier. In regards to the first principle of the structure of intellect,
primary abilities differ according to the type of material or content dealt with by the individual.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 11
Research shows that intelligence is comprised of verbal and nonverbal factors. Guilford,
Fruchter, and Kelly (1959) also found that the nonverbal classification subdivides into two
classes of abilities. “There are abilities to deal with “figural” material (concrete, perceived forms,
and properties) and there are abilities to deal with “symbolic” material (composed of letters, and
numbers)” (p. 2927). In the verbal classification are abilities for dealing with ideas or
associations. The second major principle of classification of the primary intellectual abilities is in
terms of content; factors differ with the kinds of operations performed on the material. In regards
to the third principle of the structure of intellect, primary intellectual abilities is in terms of the
products and outcomes achieved by the different operations applied to the different kinds of
contents (Guilford, Fruchter, and Kelly, 1959, p. 2928). Studies show that Guilford developed
this taxonomic model as a representation of intellectual functioning (Edwards, 1969).
Cross (1974) suggested that “present models of education overemphasize the narrow
band of human abilities that enable people to perform academic tasks” (O’Sullivan & Guilford,
1975, p.255). Preparing individuals to work with data, work with facts, and work with people
was suggested in Cross’s own three-dimensional model. E.L. Thorndike (1920) proposed that
human intellect is composed of three aspects: abstract, mechanical, and social intelligence
(O’Sullivan & Guilford, 1975). However, current studies show that “Thorndike’s “social
intelligence” and Cross’s “work with people” are too broad to be of practical value in naming the
domain of interest” (O’Sullivan & Guilford, 1975, p.255). Guilford’s (1967) Structure of
Intellect model is one of the few mainstream theories of human intelligence that includes social
intelligence abilities (O’Sullivan & Guilford, 1975).
Rhodes (1961, 1987) suggested an alliterative method that separates creative abilities
into the following aspects: person, process, press, and product. “The person category includes
research on personal characteristics, for example personality, which often includes fundamental
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 12
motivation as a core characteristic of creative individuals” (Runco, 2004, p. 661). Process
research is more behavioral and less subjective. Csikszentmihalyi (2003) presented a “systems
theory in which creative ideas originate with an individual and may eventually have an impact on
the more general domain” (Runco, 2004, p. 661). The literature on creativity refers to the
concept of press to describe pressures on the creative process or on the creativity of individuals
(Runco, 2004; Murray, 1939). Rhodes (1987) stated that “press refers to the relationship of
human beings and their environment” (Runco, 2004, p. 220). The product aspect of creativity
focuses on results and those things that are produced by the creative process. This approach is
supported by the productivity of Piaget and Picasso. However, the problem with this approach is
that it often only informs individuals about productivity, neglecting creativity. Research also
showed that it can be misleading given that what it takes to be productive may differ from what it
takes to be creative (Runco, 2004, p. 663).
Creativity Tests
The accepted definition of creativity is the production of something novel and practical;
this is what is being reflected in creativity tests (Klausen, 2010). To think creatively entails
divergent production (producing many novel ideas) followed by convergent production
(combining those ideas into a single correct product). In order to achieve creativity, individuals
need to be able to view things in new ways or from a different standpoint. They also need to be
able to produce new alternatives to many situations. Creative thinking tests measure not only the
number of new possibilities that people produce but also the novelty of those possibilities. The
ability to produce new possibilities or to see things distinctively is not due to chance; it is
associated to other, more central abilities of thinking, such as flexibility and tolerance of
ambiguity or unpredictability (Franken, 1998).
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 13
The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), developed by E. Paul Torrance, is the
most commonly used test of creativity and is the most referenced of all creativity tests (Kim,
2006). Repeated longitudinal studies have found reliable evidence of associations between real-
life creative achievement and test behavior (Kim, 2006; Metzl, 2009).
The Torrance Tests contain two separate dimensions, Verbal and Figural, and measure
the divergent thinking tasks of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Kim, 2006;
Landry, 1974). Research suggests that Torrance’s main emphasis was in understanding and
developing abilities that help individuals express their creativity (Kim, 2006). The tests were not
designed to only measure creativity, but instead to serve as tools for its development. Torrance
(1966, 1967) suggested the following uses for the tests: “1) to understand the human mind and its
function, 2) to discover effective bases for individualizing instruction, 3) to provide clues for
psychotherapeutic programs, and 4) to evaluate the effects of educational programs and teaching
curriculums” (Kim, 2006, p. 4).
Torrance decided that a shortened version of the TTCT could be beneficial, particularly
when assessing creativity in adults, since giving both the Verbal and Figural forms of the TCCT
often requires considerable testing time. As a result, Torrance, Wu, and Ando created the
Demonstration Form of the Torrance Test (D-TTCT) in 1980. The success of a shortened form
when working with adults led to the development of the currently used Abbreviated Torrance
Test for Adults (ATTA). The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults consists of three activities,
one verbal and two visual (Goff & Torrance, 2002).
Activity #1: Asks the participant to suppose that he or she could walk on air or fly, and
then to identify the troubles he or she might encounter.
Activity #2: Presents two incomplete figures and asks the participant to draw a picture
with these figures and attempt to make the pictures as unusual as possible.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 14
Activity #3: Presents a group of triangles and asks the participant to see how many
pictures or objects they can draw using the triangles.
The ATTA assessment consists of four norm-referenced abilities and fifteen criterion-referenced
creativity indicators. The four norm-referenced measures include fluency, originality,
elaboration, and flexibility. The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults Manuel (2002) defines the
measures as follow: Fluency is the ability to generate many ideas which are appropriate to the
task instruction. A creative individual typically shows the ability to produce several or alternative
answers and ideas, both verbally and visually. Originality is the ability to generate novel ideas. A
creative individual tends to generate new ideas rather than common ones. Elaboration is the
ability to enhance ideas with details. A creative individual tends to offer such enhancement
rather than being limited to the central idea. And flexibility is the ability to process information
or items in different ways given the same stimulus. A creative individual uses a flexible approach
when logical approaches fail to produce reasonable outcomes (Goff & Torrance, 2002, p. 26).
The criterion-referenced creativity indicators are identified as either verbal responses or figural
responses. Verbal responses include richness and colorfulness of imagery, emotion/feelings,
future orientation, humor (conceptual incongruity), and provocative questions. Figural Responses
include openness (resistance to premature closure), Unusual Visualization, Different Perspective,
Movement and/or Sound, Richness and/or Colorfulness of Imagery, Abstractness of Titles,
Context: Environment for Object, Articulateness in Telling Story, Combination/Synthesis of
Two or More Figures, Internal Visual Perspective, Expressions of Feelings and Emotions, and
Fantasy (Goff & Torrance, 2002).
Torrance’s research into creativity as a measure of intelligence echoes Guilford’s claim
that “IQ” tests alone cannot measure real intelligence (Kaufman, Kozbelt, Bromley & Miller,
2008). “IQ tests do not typically assess divergent thinking-- they measure learned knowledge and
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 15
the ability to store information.” (Kim, 2006). Torrance encouraged the use of individual scale
scores and warned that using a single score can be misleading (Goff & Torrance, 2002; Kim,
2006). Individual scale scores allow not only for the evaluation of each ability (fluency,
originality, elaboration, and flexibility) independently, but also allows for direct comparisons
across all four measures, which ultimately cannot be achieved using a single score (Goff &
Torrance, 2002).
Tests of verbal and visual divergent thought.
Many words in English do in fact have numerous meanings. For instance, the word light
can mean little physical weight or density (e.g., light load) or having a relatively small amount of
coloring agent (e.g., light blue). Other words may have only one meaning. The Alternative
Meanings Test is used as our measure of verbal divergent thinking. Originally developed by
neuropsychologist Elizabeth Warrington, and called the Homophone Meaning Generation Test
(HMGT), this test seeks to measure verbal flexibility and fluency, and in particular, to disengage
from one meaning to find others, divergent meanings of words. The test asks the participants to
generate different meanings for common words. The generation of different and various
meanings for these common words require switching among dissimilar verbal concepts. In this
present study, 16 words with multiple meanings are spoken to participants, and they generate as
many meaning, in sentence contexts, as they can for each word. Some are homophones with
different spellings (e.g., flu, flew...), others are homographic (bat-animal, bat-sport...). The score
is the total number of correct meanings produced. Research has found that patients with anterior
lesions performed worse than those with posterior lesions (although no significant laterality
effects appeared, as might have been expected from the notion that the left hemisphere is
commonly dominant for language abilities). These findings are also consistent with findings
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 16
from fluency tests in showing that patients with frontal lesions have deficits in cognitive
flexibility and generation of concepts (Lezak, 1995).
Suedeld and Coren (1992) argue that since Guilford’s presidential address in the 1950s,
measures of divergent thinking have been assumed to be measures of creativity. Alternate Uses
Tests, is one of the most popular of these tests, allowing subjects to find unique uses for common
objects. The ability to generate many different solutions for a single problem is an important
aspect of creative thinking. Thus, the objective of the Alternative Uses task is to generate many
possible uses for familiar objects that are different from the common use. These factors support
the use of the Alternate Uses Test as a measure of visual divergent thought.
Method
Participants
The present research involves analysis of existing data that was collected as part of an
ongoing University of Florida (UF) project on creativity and cognition, in which I participated in
during data collection, processing and scoring, during 2010. Participants were recruited from
general psychology courses at UF. All participants followed an exclusion criteria before they
were recruited stating that they never had any head injury that lead to unconsciousness nor had
any neurological or psychiatric disorders. General Psychology students received eight credits
(four hours) toward a class research requirement for participation. Those who decided not to
participate received two credits toward their research requirement. The experiment was approved
by the University Institutional Review Board prior to the start of data collection. There were
approximately 123 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Florida. Of the
participants, 39 (36.4%) were male and 68 (63.6%) were female. Of the students, 13 (12.15%)
were African-American, 19 (17.8%) were Hispanic/Latino (a), 1 (0.93%) was Native-American,
4 (3.7%) were Asian-American, 63 (58.9%) were European-American, 4 (3.7%) were
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 17
Multiracial, and 3 (2.8%) identified as “other”. The average age was 18.28 years (SD = 1.19).
The average years of education were 13.32 years.
Procedure
Participants 18 years of age and older registered for participation through SONA, which
is a secure, online recruitment system. On arrival to the lab, participants were told that the
purpose of the research study was to explore the relationship between a person’s beliefs and
knowledge about their level of creativity, and their performance on a series of cognitive tasks
intended to measure processes said to be involved in creative abilities. Participation in this study
was completely voluntary. There was no penalty for not participating.
Participants underwent a series of neuropsychological tests which consisted of simple
cognitive tasks ranging in duration from a minute to about fifteen minutes each. Some of the
tests are administered with pencil and paper, while others are computerized. The order of the
tests was fixed for all participants. Tasks included drawing simple designs, reading words,
naming the color that words are printed in, sorting cards according to different attributes, listing
different uses of objects, and solving a number of simple visual and verbal problems. The last
part of the study involved answering questions about how each individual perceives some of his
or her own problem solving and cognitive abilities. Some tests assess disengagement, which
requires that a person first break away from prior solutions, whereas other tests allow individuals
to develop alternative solutions (divergent and associative thinking) and then learn which
solution works best (convergent thinking).
Measures
The kinds of disengagement tasks in the battery of tests included those intended to assess
“stimulus dependence” (visual-spatial and verbal) and shifting set. Other tasks explored
alternative approaches, including divergent reasoning (verbal and visual-spatial), convergent
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 18
reasoning (verbal and visual-spatial) and insight (conscious versus subconscious). The divergent
reasoning task chosen to measure visual-spatial processes in the present study is the Alternative
Use of Objects Task (Guilford). In this test, the subjects were given three different objects and
asked to name as many things as they could possibly associate with that object in a two-minute
span. The subjects were told that the score was to be based on the number of uses.
The task chosen to measure divergent verbal processes is the Alternative Meanings test.
In this test, the experimenter read each of 16 words out loud to the participant. The words varied
on how many different meanings or senses the participant can refer to. For example, yard can be
a measure, or an area of land, and so forth. Some of the meanings may have different spellings,
but this should not be of any influence. The participant is given no more than two minutes for
each word.
Production of creative works was assessed using the Revised Torrance Test of Creativity.
The standard Abbreviated Torrance Test consists of three activities, one verbal and two visual.
During the verbal activity the subject was given a prompt and was instructed to write a story with
a given page limit. The second activity consisted of giving the subject a paper on which was two
incomplete drawings. The subjects were then asked not only to create meaningful drawings that
incorporate these incomplete figures but also to title their drawings. There was no time limit. The
third activity consisted of a group of triangles where participants were asked to see how many
pictures or objects they could draw using those triangles.
Participants also filled out several self-report questionnaires that explored various aspects
of their own creative activities, skills and self-assessments. These included the Creative
Processes Questionnaire, the Creative Behavior Inventory, the Creative Domain Questionnaire,
the Openness to Experience Questionnaire and the Ten Item Personality Inventory. I chose two
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 19
of these for inclusion in my study, since they lent themselves readily to separation of verbal and
visual domains.
Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI): Based on the assumption that “the best predictor of
future creative behavior may be past creative behavior”, several investigators have developed
activity and self-report biographical inventories such as the CBI. The CBI is a self-reported
checklist of creative behaviors and/or activities that the respondent has previously engaged or
participated in. Studies have made clarifications in regards to the widespread use of activity
checklists and biographical inventories. For instance, self-reported activities are discussed in
terms of creative personality because this particular type of product is usually not directly
observed or measured thus, they can be interpreted as creative products (Kaufman & Sternberg,
2010). The CBI is presented in Appendix A.
Creative Domain Questionnaire (CDQ): On a scale from 1 to 7, participants were asked
to rate themselves in each domain in life on the bases of how much they think they are creative
in that domain. For the 56 domains, participants rated their creativity as Not at all creative (1),
Not very creative (2), A little creative (3), Somewhat creative (4), Very creative (5), and
Extremely creative (6). They were also given the opportunity to mark Not applicable, which was
scored as missing data. Participants used their own definitions or concepts of creativity. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the factor structure of creative general thematic areas
using a much larger scale –examining 56 domains (Kaufman, Cole & Baer, 2009). The CDQ is
presented in Appendix B.
The study was conducted in two sessions, the first ranging from 90 minutes to two hours
in length, and the second, ranging from an hour to 90 minutes. The neuropsychological and
performance tests were performed in the first session, while the questionnaires were completed
in the second session.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 20
Results
The main analyses of the study were a series of Pearson product-moment correlations,
intended to explore the relationship between verbal and visual skills when comparing divergent
thinking and creative performance. These analyses included measures from (a) the several,
specific neuropsychological tasks, namely Alternative Meanings (verbal) and Alternative Uses
(visual), (b) verbal and visual component scores from a traditional test of creative ability,
namely the Abbreviated Torrance Test, and (c) responses to the self-report questionnaires on
creative achievement and ability, namely the Creative Behavior Inventory and the Creative
Domain Questionnaire, that focus on verbal and on visual kinds of creative activities.
Derivation of Measures.
Several of the tests used required a series of analytical steps, or ratings, to obtain the
scores to be presented. The following tests required a series of analytical steps or ratings:
Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA) - Regarding both verbal and visual
components of the ATTA, two independent raters evaluated both the stories (Activity 1) and the
drawings (Activities 2 and 3, see above). Drawings were evaluated on originality, from 1 (not
original) to 5 (highly original), and on practicality, from 1 (not practical) to 5 (very practical).
Stories were also evaluated on originality, from 1 (not original) to 5 (highly original), and on
formal style of the story, from 1 (poor style) to 5 (high style).
According to the ATTA manual, scores are calculated in terms of raw scores and various
derived scores. Quantitative guidelines for obtaining ratings for “subskills” of fluency,
originality, elaboration, and flexibility are described in the manual. As the verbal composite, task
#1 calculated raw scores for both fluency and originality. Task # 2, as the first of two visual
components, determined raw scores for fluency, originality, and elaboration. And finally, as the
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 21
second visual component, task # 3 calculated raw scores for all four subskills. Scores for fluency,
flexibility, elaboration, and originality are summed separately across all figural and verbal
subtests, thus suggesting similarity in the creative process across a variety of different activities.
In the standard scoring of the ATTA, these rating are summed across all three tasks to obtain
total scores for the four subskills. In the present analysis, the verbal component was separate
from the two visual tasks. For the verbal task (Activity 1), scores for fluency and originality were
summed to obtain the ATTA-verbal score. Subscores on all components on Activities 2 and 3
were summed to obtain the ATTA-visual score. This was done for each participant. (At the time
of analysis, these data were available for only the first 60 participants, so correlations involving
ATTA scores were limited to this sample size).
Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task was scored based on two components: fluency and
originality. Fluency scores were obtained by adding up the total number of distinct responses
made by each participant in three tasks (Brick, Hanger, and Pencil). Calculation of originality
was done by comparing the total number of each individual response from all of the participants
with the total number of participants in the study. An originality index for each response was
calculated with the following formula: 1- (proportion of participants giving that response), so the
rarer the response, the higher the originality index. (Not surprisingly, the modal number of
participants giving a particular response was 1). For example, 107 of 123 participants gave to
build something as a use of “brick”, so the index was 1- (107/123), or 0.13. In contrast, only one
gave to entomb a Barbie doll, so the index was 0.99. For each participant, the average originality
score was obtained for each of the three objects then averaged to obtain their overall originality
score for this task.
In order to obtain the Alternative Meanings test scores, the sum of each correct (new)
meaning was obtained for each participant. Two scorers obtained this measure independently,
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 22
and the average score when discrepancies arose was used as the measure of verbal divergent
thinking.
Scores from the Creative Domain Questionnaire and the Creative Behavior
Inventory were derived by distinguishing which categories dealt with verbal processes from
those which were dealt with visual processes, eliminating the remaining categories (either
verbal-and-visual, or neither). In order to do so, four raters were given a copy of each of the
questionnaires and asked to identify which categories were verbal processes and which were
visual. Only those items for which three out of the four raters agreed upon were used to derive
raw scores. This resulted in fewer than 43 percent of the overall items going into the verbal and
visual set. Appendices A and B illustrate both questionnaires. Items distinctive in verbal
processes are in bold while those distinctive in visual are italicized.
Descriptive statistics for the various measures
Mean performance score and standard deviations on the neuropsychological tests for all
subjects are displayed in Table 2. For present purposes, the most important aspect of these
statistics is that for each, there is a reasonable amount of variation, with a standard deviation
above the mean of at least 10% (for the Guilford Originality) to nearly 50% (for ATTA-verbal).
Correlations among the various measures
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for each pair of measures, using the
SPSS package. Table 4 shows these correlations and their significance levels within the verbal
domain, within the visual domain and across domains. We will first focus on the degree of
independence for the verbal versus visual dimension within each type of measure, then on the
extent to which the verbal and visual divergent thinking tests are predictive of the behavioral
(ATTA) and self-report (CBI and CDQ) measures of creative performance.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 23
To begin with, the measure of verbal divergent thinking (Alternative Meanings, first row
in Table 4) was wholly independent of that for visual divergent thinking as predicted (Alternative
Uses: Guilford Fluency and Originality, columns 2 and 3), Pearson’s r = -.025 and .089, n.s.,
respectively. Somewhat surprisingly, there was a strong correlation between the fluency and
originality on the Alternative Uses Test (r = +.69, p < 0.01). Although a correlation was
predicted between both fluency and originality, the magnitude of the correlation was surprisingly
high. This suggests that a better method for scoring originality may be necessary. Due to this,
researchers have developed a method to avoid the contamination between fluency and originality
scores. These results are consistent with those of Tarver, Ellsworth, and Rounds (1980) who
found that “figural originality and figural fluency were highly correlated (r = +.79, p <.001), as
were verbal uniqueness and verbal number (r = +.84, p < .001)” (p.16). The verbal and visual
subscales of the ATTA were largely independent, with a non-significant correlation of r = +.24,
p < .06, reflecting a shared variance of only about 5%. Usually the correlation of verbal versus
visual tasks are + .1. This unexpected occurrence can be due to the lack of distinction between
verbal and visual dimensions in the tasks. Assuming face validity, the story is verbal and the
drawing is visual, but the drawings can have some linguistic aspects and the story may involve
visual imagery, so overlapping can occur within dimensions causing a large correlation.
In contrast to this dissociation of verbal and visual components on the behavioral tests,
there were fairly strong correlations between responses for the verbal and visual items for both of
the self-report questionnaires (CBI: r = +.49, p < .001; CDQ: r = +.69, p < .001). Across the
questionnaires, the responses for verbal items were moderately correlated (CBI-verbal and CDQ-
verbal r = +.39, p < .001; CBI-visual and CDQ-visual r = +.30, p < .001).
Overall, the pattern of only weak correlations across visual and verbal dimensions
confirms the hypothesis that an independent or weakly positive relationship exists between
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 24
verbal and visual processes in connection to divergent thinking. These results also agree with the
aforementioned 1980 research conducted by Tarver, Ellsworth, and Rounds, which indicated that
the figural measures were not significantly linked to with verbal measures.
We now turn to how well the tests of verbal and visual divergent thinking predicted
behavioral performance on the ATTA and the self-reports of creative activity. As expected, the
verbally-based Alternative Meanings Test was uncorrelated with the ATTA-visual (r = +.03,
n.s.). However, neither was it correlated with the ATTA-verbal scores (r = -.15, n.s.) which was
unexpected. Also surprisingly was the pattern of results for the presumably visual Alternative
Uses test (Guilford fluency and originality), which was significantly correlated not with the
ATTA-visual (r = +.24, p < .10 for fluency, r = +.05, n.s., for originality), but with the ATTA-
verbal (r = +.39, p < .005 for fluency, r = +.29, p < .05, for originality).
Overall, performance on the Alternative Uses test measures was more strongly
correlated with responses on the questionnaires than was performance on the Alternative
Meanings test. Guilford-fluency correlated significantly with both the verbal and visual scales of
the CBI (r = +.31, p < .005 for both), and the verbal and visual scales of the CDQ (r = +.30, p <
.005, and r = +.22, p < .05, respectively). Guilford-originality showed a similar pattern (not
surprisingly, given the high correlation between fluency and originality on this test, as noted
above), CBI verbal r = +.29, p < .005; CBI visual r = +.25, p < .02; CDQ-verbal r = +.27, p <
.005; CDQ-visual r = +.08, n.s. It is interesting that, overall, as with the relation of Guilford’s
test with the ATTA, the strength of association seem somewhat greater for the verbal dimension
than with the visual, although the outcome is not as clear here. As for the verbal Alternative
Meanings test, it was only predictive of scores on the verbal scale of the CBI (r = +.24, p < .02).
Finally, we note the general lack of correlation between the “behavioral” test of creativity
and the self-reports. Of the eight possible comparisons between ATTA-verbal, ATTA-visual, and
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 25
the questionnaires, only that between ATTA-verbal and CDQ-verbal reached significance (r =
+.27, p < .05).
Not surprisingly, each questionnaire was strongly correlated with the others. For
example, CDQ-verbal was strongly correlated with CDQ-visual (r = 0.694), moderately
correlated with all other questionnaires, however, weakly correlated with ATTA-visual (r =
0.016).
Discussion
The research study presented here was designed to investigate the role of verbal and
visual processes in divergent thinking as they relate to creative activity. Although divergent
thinking may be difficult to directly observe, it is an essential part of creative processes and is
apparent in students’ creative outcome. In view of the increasing volumes of literature on the
term creativity, an interesting aspect of the present study is that verbal tasks and visual tasks
have only small correlations, not only among verbal-to-verbal and visual-to-visual but also
among verbal-to-visual tasks or skills. Thus, verbal creativity shows itself to be related to verbal
abilities while visual creativity relates not only to visual ability scores but also to verbal
reasoning scores. Research suggests that these findings are “consistent with the notion that visual
creativity is largely domain and task-specific, whereas verbal creativity, is domain-specific [but]
may also be sensitive to processes in the visual domain as well” (Palmiero, Nakatani, Raver,
Belardinelliac, & Leeuwenb, 2010).
The results showed that correlations seemed to vary across the variables being measured.
Correlations are not an all or nothing thing, a modest correlation is telling you that there is some
shared variance. Specifically, Pearson product-moment correlation demonstrated the nearly non-
existent correlation between the Alternative Meanings Test (a distinctly verbal measure) and the
visual component for the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults. Results indicate that the fluency
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 26
component of the Alternative Uses Test is significantly correlated with six creative activities:
Originality component of the Alternative Uses Test, the verbal component of the ATTA, the
verbal and visual components of the CBI, and the verbal and visual components of the CDQ.
Meanwhile, the fluency composite did not show any significant connection with creativity in the
Alternative Meanings Test. Results also indicate that the Alternative Meanings Test does not
predict creativity in either questionnaire measuring visual processes. Turner (1978) pointed out
that “people scoring highly on creative stories were not necessarily good performers on the
Stanford Reading Comprehension Test” (Palmiero, Nakatani, Raver, Belardinelliac, &
Leeuwenb, 2010, p. 376).
Unfortunately, correlations seemed to vary across the variables being measured.
However, some of the patterns are sensible thus predicting an independent or weakly positive
relationship existing between the verbal and visual measures within tests (i.e. ATTA, and
between Guilford and Alternative Meanings). Alternative Meanings also showed a predictive
correlation in regards to the verbal scale, and no others. Others suggest both verbal and visual
aspect of creativity are not as independent as predicted; and in one case, measuring Guilford
based on the observed correlations, may depend more on verbal than visual processes. This
implication could be addressed by using a better predictor test of visual divergent thinking, for
instance the use of the Finke Geometric test instead of the Alternative Uses.
Since prior research has incorporated different criteria for measuring creativity and
divergent thinking, it is difficult to compare the results of this study to other studies. “Whereas
there are a number of significant correlations between divergent thinking and real-life creativity
in this and prior studies, the correlations generally do not exceed 0.30” (Hocevar, 1980, p. 37).
By preferring qualitative strategies (open-ended questions) over quantitative ones (structured
questions), future divergent thinking tests may result in an increase in such coefficients.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 27
Harrington's research, which contends that since instructions to be creative improve the
Alternative Uses Test's predictive trustworthiness, it is believed that the predictive validity of
divergent thinking tests overall, would improve if the giving of such instructions became
standard practice (Hocevar, 1980).
In an attempt to reconcile some of the conflicting evidence, this study showed that visual
and verbal creativity are mostly domain-specific processes. On a closer look, patterns of only
weak correlations across verbal and visual dimensions where observed as well as strong
correlations between responses for the visual and verbal items for both self-report questionnaire.
Consequently, one can point out that given such mixed results, the patterns are still capable of
showing an independent relationship between the visual and verbal measures of creativity. In
summary, the findings of this study reaffirm that creativity is a complex mental function and is
contingent upon many psychological variables.
Limitations of the Study
One limitation of this study is its inability to generate findings beyond a strictly collegiate
population that is also disproportionately white as well as female. Also the fact that they were
recruited from a general psychology class makes them more knowledgeable then the average
participant. Thus, they will be more familiar to how a study is run or more willing to try to figure
out the purpose of the study. There is also the limitation of causality. For instance, these data did
not rule out the possibility that a third variable might be influencing the process of creative
production. There are many factors that determine creative abilities across individuals—
occupation, age, experience, achievement and motivation. Additionally, although the stated
hypothesis received at least partial support, it is possible that the correlations might have been
stronger and more consistent had another sample been used, thus extending the study beyond the
homogeneous college student sample. Another limitation of this study is in terms of self
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 28
reporting. We face social desirability bias which is the tendency of participants to reply in a
favorable manner. Thus, they will over-report good behavior and under-report bad behavior.
Finally, method variance is another limitation of this study. This limitation suggests that each test
could have been administered differently by each research assistant.
Possible Implications
Perhaps the most significant implication of this study is found in the differences among
raters’ tendency to rate participants’ performances on the neuropsychological tests. This study
has revealed that the relation between divergent thinking and creativity is complex, varying by
the creativity measure used. Based on the results, verbal and visual divergent thinking are not
limited to their domain. Visual abilities did not correlate positively with visual creative
performance as well as verbal abilities with verbal performance. However, results also suggest
that verbal and visual creative performance were not domain-general. This suggests that if
someone is creative in a verbal task they will not necessarily be creative in a visual task and vice
versa. For future studies, I would use the Finke’s Geometric Forms Test, which may be a better
predictor for visual creativity than the Alternative Uses Task. This is because the Alternative
Uses Task seems to have an overlap between verbal and visual dimensions whereas the Finke is
unquestionably visual. As well as using a more varied population, which is not limited in age,
occupation, race and gender may show more correlations. I would also want to run a regression
analysis in order to remove any third variable influencing the correlations. Follow-up research
should be performed in order to investigate other issues that may lead to a fuller understanding of
creativity.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 29
References
Basadur, M., Taggar, S., & Pringle, P. (1999). Improving the measurement of divergent thinking
attitudes in organizations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(2), 75-111.
Bechtereva, N. P., & Nagornova, Z. V. (2007). Changes in EEG coherence during tests for
nonverbal (figurative) creativity. Human Physiology, 33(5), 515-523.
Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
11(6), 1011-1026.
Edwards, R. (1969). Guildford’s Structure of Intellect Model: It’s Relevance for the Teacher
Preparation Curriculum. Curriculum Theory Network, 3, 47-64.
Franken, R. E. (1998). Human motivation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA US: Thomson Brooks/Cole
Publishing Co.
Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E. E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. V. (2007). Divergent thinking:
Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects.
British Journal of Psychology, 98(4), 611-625.
Goff, K., & Torrance E.P., (2002). Abbreviated Torrance Tests for Adults Manual. Bensenville:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Guilford, J. P. (1983) Transformation abilities or functions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(2),
75-83.
Guilford, J.P. (1966). Measurement and Creativity. Theory into Practice, 5(4), 186-189.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence Has Three Facets. Science, 160(3828), 615-620.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 30
Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., & Kelley, H. (1959). Development and applications of tests of
intellectual and special aptitudes. Review of Educational Research, 2926-41.
Heilman, K.M., Nadeau, S.E., & Beverdsdorf, D.O. (2003). Creative innovation: Possible brain
mechanisms. Neurocase, 9(5), 369-379.
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4(1), 25-40.
Kaufman, J. (Ed.), & Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New
York, NY US: Cambridge University Press.
Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: Structural model for
self-reported creativity ratings. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 119-134.
Kaufman, S., Kozbelt, A., Bromley, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (2008). The role of creativity and
humor in human mate selection. In G. Geher, G. Miller, G. Geher, G. Miller (Eds.),
Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind's reproductive system (pp. 227-
262). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Kilgour, M. (2006). Improving the creative process: Analysis of the effects of divergent thinking
techniques and domain specific knowledge on creativity. International Journal of
Business and Society, 7(2), 79-107.
Kim, K. (2006). Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Klausen, S. (2010). The notion of creativity revisited: A philosophical perspective on creativity
research. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 347-360.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 31
Landry, R. G. (1974). A comparison of second language learners and monolinguals on divergent
thinking tasks at the elementary school level. Modern Language Journal, 58(1-2), 10-15.
Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York, NY US: Oxford
University Press.
Metzl, E.S. (2009). The role of creative thinking in resilience after hurricane Katrina. Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 112-123.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.
Noppe, L. D., & Gallagher, J. M. (1977). A cognitive style approach to creative thought. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 41(1), 85-90.
O’Sullivan, M., & Guilford, J.P. (1975). Six Factors of Behavioral Cognition: Understanding
Other People. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12(4), 255-271.
Palmiero, M., Nakatani, C., Raver, D., Belardinelli, M., & van Leeuwen, C. (2010). Abilities
within and across visual and verbal domains: How specific is their influence on
creativity?. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 369-377.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310
Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the
Basics, ed. SG Isaksen, pp. 216-22. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
Runco, M. A. (1986). Flexibility and originality in children's divergent thinking. Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(4), 345-352.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 32
Runco, M. (Ed.), & Pritzker, S. (Ed.). (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity, Vol. 1 A–H and Vol. 2
I–Z with indexes. San Diego, CA US: Academic Press.
Russ, S. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process.
Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Seddon, G. M. (1983). The measurement and properties of divergent thinking ability as a single
compound entity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 393-402.
Sethy, S.S. (2009). Creativity and Cognition. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 45-55.
Shuell, T.J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 531-
547.
Simonton, D. (2009). Creativity. In S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder (Eds.),
Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 261-269). New York, NY US:
Oxford University Press.
Smith, K.L., Michael, W.B., Hocevar, D. (1990). Performance on creativity measures with
examination-taking instructions intended to induce high or low levels of test anxiety.
Creat. Res. J. 3,
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607-627.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T.I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In
Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: University Press.
Suedfeld, P., & Coren, S. (1992). Cognitive correlates of conceptual complexity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13(11), 1193-1199.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 33
Tarver, S. G., Ellsworth, P. S., & Rounds, D. J. (1980). Figural and verbal creativity in learning
disabled and nondisabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(3), 11-18.
Torrance, E. (Ed.), Glover, J. (Ed.), Ronning, R. (Ed.), & Reynolds, C. (Ed.). (1989). Handbook
of creativity. New York, NY US: Plenum Press.
Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. Carmichael’s Handbook of Child Psychology, 1211-72.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the
creativity-intelligence distinction.
Welling, H. (2007). Four mental operations in creative cognition: The importance of abstraction.
Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 163-177.
Wetherell, A. (1996). Performance Tests. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104(2), 247-273.
Williams, S. (2000). Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking and
creativity in organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 61.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 34
Author Note
It is my belief that any good research will add to the knowledge base of the field—but in
addition, and probably more importantly, it will leave us with more unanswered questions than
we began with. This will inspire others in the field to continue the research and to add to our
understanding of these concepts to an even greater level. This has been an incredible learning
experience for me and I feel that my research has accomplished these requirements. I would like
to thank Dr. Fischler’s research assistants for their assistance with data collection. I am also
grateful for the comments and suggestions made by Dr. Ira Fischler. The research here is based
on a larger research conducted by Ameer Alwafai, at the University of Florida, which made an
attempt to learn if creativity is altered with aging and if there are possible factors that might
account for the reduction or alteration of creativity.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 35
Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Student Demographic Characteristics
Frequency Percent
Ethnicity_____
African American 13 12.2
Caucasian 63 58.9
Asian 4 3.7
Hispanic 19 17.8
Multiracial 4 3.7
Other 3 2.8
Gender_________
Female 68 63.6
Male 39 36.4
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 36
Table 2
Mean Performance Score on Neuropsychological Tests
AtlM Guil_F Guil_O ATTA_VB ATTA_VS
Mean 39.27 7.43 0.71 10.20 29.80
SD 6.88 2.81 0.07 4.87 12.40
Maximum 61 15.7 0.84 25 61
Minimum 28 3.3 0.52 2 3
Note. AltM = Alternative Meanings Test, Guil_F = Alternative Use of Objects (Guilford)
Fluency, Guil_O = Alternative Use of Objects (Guilford) Originality, ATTA_VB = Abbreviated
Torrance Test for Adults Verbal Score, ATTA_VS = Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults
Visual Score.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 37
Table 3
Mean Performance Score on Self-Report Questionnaires Measuring Creative Activities
Verbal Visual Total Rsps
Creative Behavior Inventory 2.03 2.42 2.08
(0.60) (0.85) (0.51)
Creative Domain Questionnaire 4.53 4.33 4.16
(0.78) (1.03) (0.77)
Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means. Rsps = Responses.
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 38
Table 4. Pearson correlations among the variables used.
Correlations
AtlM GUI_F GUI_O ATTA_vb ATTA_vs CBI-vb CBI-vs CDQ-vb CDQ-vs
AtlM Pearson Correlation 1 -.025 .089 -.145 .033 .236* .046 .112 .098
Sig. (2-tailed) .805 .371 .268 .801 .019 .653 .262 .326
N 109 104 104 60 60 98 98 102 102
GUI_F Pearson Correlation -.025 1 .696** .388** .236 .311** .311** .302** .218*
Sig. (2-tailed) .805 .000 .003 .077 .002 .002 .002 .027
N 104 116 113 57 57 100 100 104 104
GUI_O Pearson Correlation .089 .696** 1 .288* .051 .280** .248* .274** .078
Sig. (2-tailed) .371 .000 .033 .713 .005 .014 .005 .437
N 104 113 113 55 55 98 98 102 102
ATTA_vb Pearson Correlation -.145 .388** .288* 1 .241 .074 .146 .267* .091
Sig. (2-tailed) .268 .003 .033 .055 .582 .276 .041 .493
N 60 57 55 64 64 58 58 59 59
ATTA_vs Pearson Correlation .033 .236 .051 .241 1 .077 .222 .016 .054
Sig. (2-tailed) .801 .077 .713 .055 .564 .094 .903 .686
N 60 57 55 64 64 58 58 59 59
CBI-vb Pearson Correlation .236* .311** .280** .074 .077 1 .492** .391** .319**
Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .002 .005 .582 .564 .000 .000 .001
N 98 100 98 58 58 108 108 107 107
CBI-vs Pearson Correlation .046 .311** .248* .146 .222 .492** 1 .264** .304**
Sig. (2-tailed) .653 .002 .014 .276 .094 .000 .006 .001
N 98 100 98 58 58 108 108 107 107
CDQ-vb Pearson Correlation .112 .302** .274** .267* .016 .391** .264** 1 .694**
Sig. (2-tailed) .262 .002 .005 .041 .903 .000 .006 .000
N 102 104 102 59 59 107 107 112 112
CDQ-vs Pearson Correlation .098 .218* .078 .091 .054 .319** .304** .694** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .326 .027 .437 .493 .686 .001 .001 .000
N 102 104 102 59 59 107 107 112 112
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 39
Appendix A
Creative Behavior Inventory (Hocevar, 1979, 1980)
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4, 25-40.
This is an inventory, not a test. The inventory is simply a list of activities and accomplishments that are commonly
considered to be creative. For each item, circle the answer that best describes the frequency of the behavior in your
adolescent and adult life. Be sure to answer every question, and don’t worry about duplicate or similar items.
3-4 5-6 More than
Never Once Twice times times 6 times
1. Received an award for acting. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
2. Worked as an editor for a school or university literary publication. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
3. Worked as an editor for a newspaper or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
4. Constructed something that required scientific knowledge such as
a radio, telescope, scientific apparatus, etc.
(excluding school or university course work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
5. Painted an original picture. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
6. Designed and made your own greeting card. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
7. Gave a recital. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
8. Presented an original mathematics paper to a professional
or special interest group. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
9. Founded a literary magazine or similar publication. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
10. Made a craft out of metal (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
11. Made candles. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
12. Knitted or crocheted something (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
13. Put on a puppet show. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
14. Made your own holiday decorations. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
15. Built a hanging mobile (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
16. Received an award for performance in modern dance or ballet. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
17. Received an award for performance in popular dance. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
18. Had a mathematics paper published. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
19. Made a sculpture (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
20. Had an original music published or publicly performed. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
21. Had a piece of literature (poem/short stories, etc.) published in
a school or university publication. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
22. Developed an experimental design (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
23. Wrote poems (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
24. Entered a project into a science contest. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 40
3-4 5-6 More than
Never Once Twice times times 6 times
25. Received an award for an artistic accomplishment. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
26. Received an award for making a craft. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
27. Made a craft out of plastic, Plexiglas, stained glass or a similar material. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
28. Made cartoons. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
29. Made a leather craft. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
30. Made a ceramic craft. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
31. Wrote music for one instrument. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
32. Wrote music for several instruments. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
33. Designed and made a piece of clothing 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
34. Cooked an original dish. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
35. Prepared an original floral arrangement. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
36. Applied math in an original way to solve a practical problem
(excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
37. Wrote an original computer program (excluding school
or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
38. Drew a picture for aesthetic reasons. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
39. Wrote the lyrics to a song. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
40. Choreographed a dance. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
41. Wrote a short story (excluding school or university work). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
42. Wrote something humorous such as jokes, limericks, satire, etc. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
43. Made jewelry. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
44. Recorded a music record or CD. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
45. Put on a radio show. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
46. Had a piece of literature (poem, short story, etc.) published
(not in a school or university-related publication). 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
47. Took and developed your own photographs. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
48. Performed ballet or modern dance in a show or contest. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
49. Had art work or craft work publicly exhibited. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
50. Won an award for musical accomplishments. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
51. Wrote clever or humorous letters. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
52. Won an award for a scientific project or paper. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
53. Assisted in the design of a set for a musical or dramatic production. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
54. Had art work published in a school or university publication. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
55. Had a role in a dramatic production. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
56. Had art work published. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
57. Started but did not finish a novel. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 41
3-4 5-6 More than
Never Once Twice times times 6 times
58. Wrote and completed a novel. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
59. Made or helped make a film or video tape. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
60. Won an award for some achievement in literature. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
61. Entered a mathematical paper or project into a contest. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
62. Had a scientific paper published. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
63. Planned and kept a garden. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
64. Kept a sketch book. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
65. Was a participating member of a symphony orchestra. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
66. Entered a contest as a singer. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
67. Entered a contest as a musician. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
68. Directed or managed a dramatic production. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
69. Designed and made a costume. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
70. Played an instrument (percussion, including piano) with a reasonable
degree of proficiency. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
71. Played an instrument (string) with a reasonable degree of proficiency. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
72. Played an instrument (brass) with a reasonable degree of proficiency. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
73. Played an instrument (wind) with a reasonable degree of proficiency. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
74. Participated in a drama workshop, club, or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
75. Participated in a craft workshop, club, or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
76. Participated in a writers’ workshop, club, or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
77. Participated in a dance workshop, club, or similar organization. 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 7+
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 42
Appendix B
Creativity Domain Questionnaire
Please rate your creativity in the following domains. Some of these domains may seem to
overlap. Do not worry about this; rather, try to think about your creativity in each specific
domain as you understand it, without worrying about how it may overlap with other domains
listed. For domains that you are not personally familiar with, feel free to check ‘Not Applicable’.
Thank you!
How creative are you in:
Not Not at all Not very A little Somewhat Very Extremely
Applicable Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative
Accounting/Money Management
Acting/Performance
Advertising/Sales
Algebra/Trigonometry
Architecture/Design
Ballet/Dance/Gymnastics/
Creative Movement
Business/Entrepreneurial Abilities
Chemistry
Computers/Computer Science
Cooking
Crafts/Sculpture/‘Folk’ Art
Earth Sciences
Emotions
English Literature/Criticism
Fashion/Working with Clothing
Film and/or Theatrical
Writing/Direction
Geometry
Graphic Design/Multimedia
History/Historical Analysis
Horticulture/Gardening
Humor/Comedy
Interacting/Communicating with Children
Interacting/Communicating with Friends and Family
Interacting/Communicating with Strangers
Interior Design/Decorating
Law/Legal Skills
Verbal and Visual Skills in Creative Thinking 43
Life Sciences/Biology
Logic/Puzzles/‘Everyday Math’
Mechanical Abilities
Medicine
Music Composition
Naturalistic Science/Resource
Management
Painting/Drawing
Personnel Management/
Leadership
Photography
Physics
Playing a Musical Instrument
Political Sciences (inc. Economics)
Problem Solving
Psychotherapy/Psychiatry
Social Sciences (inc. Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology)
Solving Personal Problems
Spatial-Visual Abilities
Speech/Debate/Verbal Abilities
Spirituality/Religious Thought
Sports Performance
Sports Strategy
Teaching/Education
Textiles/Fabrics
Travel/Interacting with Different Cultures
Vocal Performance/Singing
Wood/Metal Working
Working with Animals/Animal Training and Management
Writing Fiction/Prose Writing Non-Fiction/Journalism
Writing Poetry
______________________________________________________________________________Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 20: 1065–1082 (2006).