EXPLORING CREATIVE BEHAVIOR IN THREE AND
FOUR YEAR OLD CHILDREN

THESIS FOR THE DEGREE 0F ILA.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLEEN BAIRD
1977

I - 'm-w-W ,_____.—.._

 

a

‘ 51:")
01“"— 0

(I V '."-' ”"1" . x
/ satW fir» ,1ng

‘ 'l I“ 2 _
(f p I I"
"u d . .

 

EXPLCRING CREATIVE BEHAVIOR IN THREE AND
FOUR YEAR OLD CHILDREN

BY

Coleen Baird

A THESIS

Submitted to
IMichigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Family and Child Sciences

ABSTRACT
EXPLORING CREATIVE BEHAVIOR IN THREE AND FOUR YEAR OLD CHILDREN

By

Coleen Baird

Available research on the subject of creativity does not give

a clear, concise picture of what is meant by the term "creativity".

One component however was found in most of the literature reviewed,

and that is the concept of uniqueness or innovative behavior. The
present research, in an attempt to come up with a workable definition
of creativity, focused on this Specific area without claiming it to be
a totally encompassing view of creativity. In this study, creativity
was defined as the exhibition of unique or original behavior in contrast
to other children.

The literature reviewed also contained examples of training programs
to increase creativity. The success of some of these programs leads to
the assumption that creativity can be taught, or at least increased by
freeing the individual from some obstructions to creativity.

Before these assumptions could be tested, it was felt it would be
necessary to have some measure of creativity. While tests were available
fer the assessment of creativity in older children, there were no tests for
creativity at the preschool level. This project, set up a thrgg_task
procedure to measure creativity in three and four year old children. The
three.tasks were "Dog and Bone" which required the children to think of
different routes which a dogfcould use to get his bone, "Blocks" which

involved the use of blocks varying in size, shape and color from which

Coleen Bairi

the child was asked to build something, and a picture of the child,
drawn by himself. He was given a set of 9 colored markers to use.
Each task was then rated for uniqueness.

Substantial congruent validity was found among the three tests
for creativity. The difference score for the dog and bone test correlated
very highly with the uniqueness scores on the draw a picture of self, and
blocks exercise. Therefore the Dog and Bone difference scores were
substituted for the Dog and Bone uniqueness score as a measure of
uniqueness. When these scores were summed, they formed a highly reliable
overall measure of creativity.

A significant difference was not found between the older and younger
children tested as to the uniqueness scores. Equal amounts of diversity in
both groups were feund.

Quantity (number of attempts) did not necessarily predict quality
(uniqueness or creativity score). There were significant relationships
between quantity scores and quality scores. The relationships however
seemed to be dependent on the specific nature of the exercise rather than

being constant across exercises.

By reviewing the data, it becomes apparent that there is a component
of thinking in young children called creativity, which can be measured and
is fairly consistent across exercises. This characteristic of individuals
seems to be most transferable through common mediums; i.e., color,line.

The implications from these findings are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the loving support of my husband.
I appreciate his helping me through the more difficult aspects of
this attempt. I appreciate the confidence which he has exhibited in
me from beginning to end. This support has been invaluable and is
particularly noteworthy as it came at the beginning of his own career
when time is so precious.
I would also like to acknowledge the suggestions and guidance
of my committe members: Dr. Donald Melcer, Dr. Ellen Strommen, and
Dr. Eileen Earhart. Chairman. Their insights added much to my efforts.
I appreciate the focus which Dr. Melcer brought in on the
important role of the family in a study of creativity, and for his
suggestions in setting up the tasks.
Dr. Strommen seemed particularly perceptive in getting the
total perspective and helping me to think things through. I appreciate
her influence in encouraging greater efforts on my part and for
the time spent in editing and corrections.
A very sincere acknowledgement goes to Dr. Eileen Earhart
fer her patient and careful editing as well as her support,

encouragement, and guidance throughout the entire effort.

ii

CHAPTER 1:

CHAPTER 11:

CHAPTER III:

CHAPTER IV:
CHAPTER.V:

APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Need for Further Study into Creativity .

Purpose

Hypotheses

Theory .

Overview .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Defining Creativity
Training Children in Creativity
METHODS OF PROCEDURES
Procedures . . . . . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . . .
Measures . . . . . . . . . . .
Testable Hypothesis
Analysis . . . . . . . . . .
Summary

RESULTS

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions and Discussion . .

Implications fer Future Research

Appendix A: Letter to Parents .

Appendix B; Raw Data. . . . .

Appendix C: Coding Sheet . .

ii

. 11

. 14
. 15
. 15
. 21
. 21
. 22

. 23

. 34
. 36
40 '

, 46

47
48

49

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

"LIST OF TABLES"

Age and Sex Distribution of Children .

Means and Standard Deviations for Measures
of Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlations of Uniqueness Scores for the
Three Creativity Tests . . . . . . . . . .

Correlations of Quantity and Difference
Scores for the Three Creativity Tests . . .

Analysis of Variance fer Younger and Older
Children 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O C

Homogeneity of Variances . . . . . . . . . .

Correlations Between Uniqueness and Quantity
Scores for the Three Creativity Tests

iv

, 16

. 24

. 25

26

. 29

. 30

. 32

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

For most researchers and educators, creativity seems to have
been ignored with the strong emphasis on cognitive development. A
few exceptions can be found, however, of researchers who have perser—
vered with the study of creativity over the years (Torrance, 1965,
1965b, 77; Wallach and Kogan, 1965). Recently some researchers and
educators have become concerned with this lack of emphasis. Butler
(1970) stated that the future of our civilization is largely dependent
on the projected creative abilities and imagination of children.
Although concern has been expressed, there is little evidence of

research which has focused on this need.

Need for further study into creativity

 

There is a strong justification for research and study into
creativity. Creative thinking is a powerful force, and from it we
have received great advances both in the sciences and the arts. As
Torrance (1962) accumulated research, it became evident that creative
thinking had significant value in addition to achievement in arts
and sciences. Its importance in mental education, vocational success,
and other areas of life are only beginning to be rec0gnized. Torrance
stated that perhaps nothing can contribute more to the general welfare
of individuals, and their satisfaction and mental health than a gen-
eral raising of the level of creative behavior. He states:

"There is little doubt but that the prolonged and

severe stifling of creative thinking cuts at the

very roots of satisfaction in living. This must

inevitably create overwhelming tension and break-
down." (Torrance, 1965)

Torrance also pointed out that as evidence from longitudinal
and cross-cultural developmental studies accumulated, it became clearer
and clearer that creativity needs to be energized and guided almost
from.birth. He felt that if it were stifled early, it would only
become imitative creative behavior if it survived at all (Torrance,
1965).

Hopefully, with increased research into creativity, we can
begin to untangle some of these problems and processes which face
us today. The next question becomes, "Are we looking for these answers
with the right age group?" While creative needs and creative thinking
abilities are universal enough to make creative ways of learning
valuable for all children, the great individual differences in the
strength of these needs and the nature and degree of these abilities
make the problem more complex. Yochim (1967) also contended that
creative attitudes established early in childhood appear to influence
all subsequent behavior, tend to become personality factors and should
be valued as such.

What does this research imply? Some researchers have observed
that five year olds lose much of their natural creativity by the time
they enter school (Pulsifer, 1963). Elizabeth Andrews did a very
careful and systematic study of creative or imaginative functioning
and development during the pre-school years (Andrews, 1930) and
she found that the total imaginative scores were highest between 4
and 431 years with a sudden drop at age 5 when the child entered
kindergarten. This suggests perhaps that more attention should be
given to the productive years before entering school, when creativity

appears to be unhampered by later constraints.

Many who have commented on this drop in creative thinking ability
and behavior have looked upon it as a purely develOpmental phenomenon.
Torrance (1962) did not accept this. His research pointed out that this
developmental curve is cultural rather than developmental and that what
he terms "creative thinking" can and should be taught.

But just how early do children exhibit this innovative behavior?
And can it be measured? Does the way in which parents work with their 2
year olds influence the development of the child's ability to utilize
unique methods. A study by White (1975) focused on the period from 10
months to 3 years and found that a caretaker's actions do more to influ-
ence a child's future competence at age 10-18 months than any time before
or after this period. White's research feund differences appearing among
children in intellectual and social skills. Differences might also exist
in creative behavior.

Looking at innovative behavior with children 3 and 4 years old,
are there some who are exhibiting a greater ability to think or react in
more unique ways? A measurement device is needed at an earlier age, an
age where unfertunately, many of the tests for creativity are inappro-
priate. Several tests are available fer the assessment of intellectual
abilities in nursery school age children, but there are no tests fer
creativity at this age level.

Research fecusing on creativity with young children would h0pe-
fully shed new light on several areas‘af concern and help in our under-
standing of this complex process. We need research which will help us
come to a more complete understanding of a child's abilities. There is
more to a child's potential than his IQ, whether it is labelled creativity,

innovative behavior, or divergent thinking. Wallach and Kogan (1965),

for example, have found an independence of traditional intelligence mea-
sures from indices of associative creativity when the measures were pre-
sented in a game-like, nonevaluative context.

Having some measure of creativity would be a means of becoming
aware of potentialities that might otherwise go unnoticed in children.
This would be valuable in recognizing giftedness in all children, but
especially in the culturally disadvantaged child.

A measure of creativity would help make it possible to ascertain
at what level children are functioning so as to be able to pinpoint their
needs and deficiencies and help them to broaden their frame of reference
and open their minds to new avenues of thought. Several programs have
been set up with specific goals in mind; to increase creative ability,
to increase the spontaneous and free flow of ideas, and to hopefully
eliminate some of the blocks to the development of creativity. An appro-

priate measure would make it possible to evaluate these programs.

Pu se

A number of creativity measures for older children and youth
are available. However, there are no tests which measure creativity in
pre-school children. If creativity is to be taught and programs developed
to guide children in learning, the creation of such a test would appear
to be the logical next step. The purpose of this study is to set up a
measurement of creativity fer children 3 and 4 years of age. One of two
strategies could be adopted. The first choice would be to validate fer
younger children a creativity test developed for older children. The
second alternative would be to completely develop new tests for younger
children. A combination of these two approaches was adopted for this

4

\J'l

study. The Dog and Bone test (Banta, 1969) was validated by compar—
ing it with two new tests which were developed specifically for this
study.

These two new measures of creativity which have face validity
were structured so that they required cognitive processes analogous to
those involved in the creative measures of older children (Getzel and
Jackson, 1962; Wallach and Kogan, 1965; Torrance, E.P., 1961; Barron, F.,
1958; and others). However, the attempt was to gear the exercises to the
conceptual level of the younger child. This was done by dealing with
variations in colors and shapes, which would seem to be more congruent
with the mental development and interest level of the younger child
than the exercises commonly used. The established test for 4-6 year
olds which was used was a subtest from the Cincinnati Autonomy Test

Battery (Banta, 1969) called the "Dog and Bone Test."

Hypotheses

 

This research had two objectiveswhich it focused on:
A. 'Ehe attempt was made to develop a creativity
measure for three and feur year olds using a
three task procedure.
B. The research would serve as an exploratory
study fer future research to build on in an
attempt to better understand the creative
process .
The paper was designed to investigate the following hypotheses within
the context of the objectives:

1. There will be a substantial congruent validity
among the three tests for creativity.

2. There will be no difference in the average
level of creativity as measured by the
three tests between the three and four
year olds.

3. There will be equal amounts of diversity
among the younger and older children on the
measures of creativity.

4. Quantity (number of times tried) will not be

correlated with Quality (uniqueness or
creativity scores).

Theory

This research presumes that creativity is an individual char-
acteristic and will remain stable across mediums and experiences. If a
child is creative in his approach to one problem, he is likely to be
creative in his solution of other problems as well. Therefbre, it is
hypothesized that there will be substantial congruent validity among
the various tests for creativity.

Questions have also been raised regarding the stability of
creative ability over age classifications. The argument against mea-
surement suggests that at such a young age changes in creativity are a

function of the maturation process and nothing else. Therefore, measure—

ment W111 be a measurement of the speed at which individuals develop and
not a measurement of actual individual differences. If this assumption
is correct, the older groups of children should have a higher mean value
on the creativity measures but should still have comparable diversity,
i.e., there should be no differences in the variances. Other research
(Kogan and Pankove, 1972) suggests that ideational productivity and
uniqueness scores are fairly consistent over different age categories.

This would suggest that neither the mean values of the creativity

measures nor the variances should Vary across age groups. Hypothesis

2 of the research was directed at determining whether it was correct to
assume that there would be no difference in the average level of creativity
between the older and younger group of children. In Hypothesis 3, the
variances across age groups were analyzed.

A review of the literature on creativity (Roweton, 1972) demon-
strated that measures of quality and quantity may be confounded. Research
does not make it clear whether quality and quantity are independent mea-
sures. The question has been raised as to whether those children who
scored high on the tests were scoring high simply because they engaged
in more activity. It would be appropriate to investigate whether quan-
tity led to quality and if there would be some correlation. This research

hypothesized that quantity and quality would not be correlated.

Overview

In Chapter II, the pertinent literature is reviewed giving some
of the definitions fer creativity as well as a discussion on training
children to be more creative. In Chapter III, procedures are presented,
with a description of the sample and the three tests of creativity which
were administered. In Chapter IV, the results are described with an
explanation of the relevance of each hypothesis.-

In beginning any type of study of creativity, the first step
must be to come to some sort of definition of creativity. At the begin-
ning of Chapter II, a review of some of the researchers! definitions of
creativity are presented; afterwhich there is a statement of the defini-

tion of creativity which this study has used.

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Defining Creativity

 

Many researchers have questioned the use of the word creativity
in dealing with anything concrete. They feel that creativity is infi-
nite and its possibilities can never be exhausted; and, therefore, it is
impossible to measure. Others feel that the term is too value laden and
cannot be used effectively.

The "creativity" research which is available is somewhat con-
fusing. The dimensions studies are so varied that it is difficult to
determine which, if any, appropriately define creativity. Getzel and
Jackson (1962) refer to creativity as a cognitive ability which can best
be tested in a written manner. They describe it as the "ability to deal
inventively with verbal and numerical symbol systems and with object-
space relations based on the novelty, variety, and amount of adaptive
responses to the task given them." From this, they proposed five
creativity indicators.

Cline, Richards, and Needham (1963) explored seven presumed
measures of creativity. These measures included word associations given
in response to various stimulus words, atypical drawings, infrequent uses
for familiar objects, and a composition looking at uniqueness of overall
work and cleverness of plot title.

Torrance has been involved in the study of creativity fer many
years. Torrance defined creativity as the process of sensing difficul-
ties, problems, gaps in information and missing components, and bringing
currently existing information together into new relationships. Accord-

ing to Torrance, creativity is involved in making guesses about the

8

deficiencies noted, testing these guesses and perhaps revising them, and
then communicating the results. A

A battery of tests has evolved from the years of studying which
Torrance has done. These tests identify creative elementary school chil-
dren and compare them with their classmates on certain variables. Such
measures include the inventive manipulation of toys, alternative solu-
tions to frustrating situations in well-known children's stories, and
the Ask and Guess Test for eliciting creative thinking (Torrance, 1959).
Using these exercises, Torrance and Gowan (1963) found that visual and
verbal measures of creativity are largely independent of each other.

Guilford and his associates (1968) have also investigated cre-

ativity. Guilford has dealt with a concept called "divergent thinking"
and stated that this type of thinking is an indication of creativity.
He categorized specific processes under the heading "divergent thinking."
The areas he covered are: word fluency, associational fluency, ideational
fluency, spontaneous flexibility, adaptive flexibility, redefinition, and
originality.

Much of the literature seems to equate divergent thinking and
creativity, but Lytton (1972) brought out that there is little evidence
to suggest that scores from such tests have much relation to concrete
creative performance. The relationship between divergent thinking and
the creative domain, e5pecially in regard to science and technology,
are a great deal more complex, according to Lytton, than many researchers
explore.

Auerbach (1972) stated that a creative act marked a change; a
new, unique, and original development for an individual. Koestler (1967)

described creativity as a pyramid-like heirarchy where simultaneous

10

activities Occurring at several levels are‘brought together. Starkweather
(Butler, 1970) described several intellectual factors which he felt are
part of the creative domain. Thinking in such a way as to produce a
variety of responses, transformations; being able to manipulate or toy
with ideas, and the ability to sense ambiguities are some of the factors
he mentioned.

Lytton (1972) discussed two types of creativity: subjective and
objective. According to Lytton, objective creativity is composed of ap-
propriateness, novelty, and power to transform the traditional constraints
of reality and yield radically new perspectives. It can be part of any
human activity and can be present at different levels of intelligence or
ability. Subjective creativity is when a person combines or groups
stimuli in a way which is new or novel to his previous experiences, al-
though others may have done it prior to his attempt.

Subjective creativity presumably takes place in young children
in developing a sense of competence and learning new skills. Although
children may lack the mastery or differentiation necessary to exhibit
the highest level of objective creativity, it would appear that they are

involved with objective creativity at some level.

Summagy

In summary, the literature cited does not give a clear, concise
picture of creativity. Researchers have dealt with highly specific
traits and used unique definitions. There is no agreed upon definition.
However, all have some aspects in common.- One component which is found
in all of them is the concept of uniqueness or innovative behavior.

The present research focuses on this specific area or ability, without

11

any claim that it is a totally encompassing view of creativity, but rec-
ognizing it as an important component of creativity. Therefore, creativ—
ity will be defined in the present research as the exhibition of unique

or original behavior.

Training Children in Creativity

 

The literature reviewed also contained programs set up to in-
crease creativity in children. Attempts have been made to teach children
to think creatively, and Torrance studied 142 different methods (Torrance,
1972). From this, he found that those which had the highest percentages
of success were those that emphasize the Osborne-Parnes training program,
other disciplined approaches, the creative arts, and media-oriented pro-
grams. One thing that he felt his investigation established was that
children can be taught to think creatively. The most successful ap-
proaches seem to be those that involve both cognitive and emotional
functioning, provide adequate structure and motivation, and give oppor—
tunities for involvement, practice, and interaction with teachers and
other children. Motivating and facilitating conditions certainly make
a difference in creative functioning, but differences seem to be greatest
and most predictable when deliberate teaching is involved.

The concept that teaching creativity can be accomplished has
been discussed in several other articles (DeVito, 1976; Baroody, Brumley,
Hocevar and Ripple, 1976). Torrance and Fortson (1968) reported a study
attempting to assess the creative growth that occurred among the children
participating in a program entitled a "Creative Aesthetic Approach to
School Readiness and Beginning Reading and Mathematics" which was formu-

lated and elaborated by Laura R. Fortson. The results indicated that as

12

a result of attending this school, the children showed significant gains
in several areas; with verbal and figural originality being two of the
areas.

The Creative Studies Project (Barnes and Noller, 1971) is an
interdisciplinary effort to conduct research into the nature and nurture
of creative behavior, and to take these findings and build them into an
educational program at the university level.

Another example of a training procedure is that of Covington,
Crutchfield, and Davies (1969). The objective¢xf the program is to en-
hance effective problem-solving skills in 10-11 year old children.

A college course is taught at Buffalo, New York in learning how
to think creatively and utilize brainstorming (Lytton, 1972). Another
sephisticated approach to creative production has been labelled "synectics"
and is a technique which involves working in groups to increase creative
output (Gordon, 1961). Starkweather (Butler, 1970) stated that certain
intellectual factors are thought to directly contribute to creative
power. She saw the challenge as one of finding which sequence of learn-
ing activities would help the child relate his fantasies to reality, and
eventually learn to represent his internal feelings and experiences by
externalizing them through drawing, words, and numbers.

Torrance (1965a)-also felt that much could be done to increase
creative performance. He felt that by rewarding creative thinking, and
utilizing creative activities, creative growth could be fostered. How-
ever, he admitted that the provision of such exercises or activities does
not guarantee creative growth. He pointed out that it is obvious that
other factors must be present for such growth to take place. He main-

tained that it is quite likely that one important condition is a "larger

13

environment which values creativity."

Since our abilities constitute, at least to some extent, the
basis of needs and motivation, knowledge about a person's creative think—
ing abilities frequently provides clues about differential preferences
for learning, and would thus help us recognize ways in which we can ef-
fectively teach and guide children in other aspects of learning besides

creativity.

Summazy

The concept that teaching creativity can be accomplished in
varying degrees has been illustrated. One thing which becomes apparent
in reviewing these different methods and approaches of increasing cre-
ativity is that most of the programs (Covington, Crutchfield, and Davies,
1969; Parnes, 1963; Osborn, 1953; Parnes and Noller, 1971; and others)
are fer older children, youth and adults. It is interesting to note the
success they have had. However, it would seem that removing some of the
blocks to creative expression and helping someone develop the ability to
look at things from a variety of angles could be much more,effectively
accomplished at a younger age, such as three or four years. Although
these programs show signs of success, would more effective results be
obtained at a younger age? For this reason the present study has
focused on three and four year old children.

Thus, based on the above discussion, the present research
project had two overall objectives: first, to deve10p measures of
creativity which would be applicable to three and four year olds;
second, to gain an initial understanding of uniqueness as one of the

most common and generally agreed upon measures of creativity.

CHAPTER III: METHODS OF PROCEDURES

Procedures

 

Most researchers testing creativity impose definite time limits
on the testing. Most researchers administer the tests in groups in a
test-like atmosphere. According to Wallach and Kogan (1965), this is in
contrast to the very type of concept being sought. They suggest that
when testing creativity, it is necessary to have a non-pressured play-
type atmosphere, with no time constraints. They basically suggest this
because they feund that the first answers given were most likely
stereotyped, with unique answers, if given at all, being produced after
a longer period of time. Within a decreased time, these responses would
not have been obtained.

Another study done by Fuqua, Bartsch, and Phye (1975) also
found that children who took more time to think things through (they re-
ferred to them as reflective children) scored higher than children who
acted impulsively on their measures of creativity.

Recognizing these problems, this project used a free-testing
atmosphere. This atmosphere was obtained by presenting the exercises
as a game, testing each child separately, and removing all time limits.

Before administration of the test, permission was obtained from
each of the child's parents. Copies of the letter requesting permission
from the parents is included in Appendix A. Over a period of 4 weeks,
3-4 children were tested each day. They were asked by the examiner if

they would like to go into the other room to play some games.

14

15

Sample

Thirty-three children from whom parental permission had been
obtained were asked to participate. Of these children, four initially
refused. One child when approached the next day changed his mind and
agreed to participate. The ages and sex distribution are included in
Table l. The sample was drawn to include an equal number of boys and
girls. Also, there were as many three year olds as there were four
year olds. All participants were enrolled in a local nursery school in
a suburb of a large eastern city. The sample was drawn from middle to
upper-middle class backgrounds. The tests were administered at the
nursery school in surroundings that the children were familiar with.

The table and chairs were standard nursery equipment, scaled to their
small size. The tests were all administered by the author. The children
were tested in an atmosphere with ample praise and encouragement. Each
child was commended for each response he gave and encouraged to go on.
When the child responded that he was done or could think of nothing more
to do, the particular test was terminated. With this freedom of time
constraint, there was a variation in time for the complete testing from

about ten minutes to 40 minutes.

Measures
Included below are descriptions of each of the measures. The

raw scores are included in Appendix B.

1) Dog and Bone
The Dog and Bone is a measure taken from the Cincinnati Autonomy

Test Battery (CATB) which is a general test for autonomy in children four

Number of Children

 

16

Table 1

Age and Sex Distribution of Children

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 years 4 years 3 years

MALE . FEMALE

4 years

 

17

to six years old. This particular exercise refers to unique answers or

behavior. Materials used are a toy dog, bone, and four dog houses. The

experimenter points to the dog and asks the subject what it is. "The

dog has a bone, right here, which it wants to get (points to bone).

There are four dog houses. One way that the dog can get his bone is to

go this way (go directly to bone), but it can also go around this house

and get the bone. Can you think of any other ways the dog can get his

bone?" The game is continued until the child's actions become completely
repetitious (no new routes are used in the ten successive tries) or the child
loses interest. Each time the child moved the dog from the beginning

position to the bone, the path taken was marked by the examiner on a

score sheet (see Appendix C). Three related variables were measured:

the number of unique responses produced by the child; the number of dif-

ferent responses produced by the child; and the total number of responses

produced by the child.

a) The total number of responses was determined by the child exhibiting
the path the dog could take to get the bone. The examiner would then
trace the path on a marking sheet (See Appendix B). Each time the
child.showed how the dog would go, it was recorded, whether it was
repetitious or not. The total number of tries was a score determined
by counting the number of attempts the child made. The range varied
from 40 tries to 2 tries.

b) The number of different responses was determined by crossing out the
repetitious tries each child made for getting the dog to his'bone on
the marking sheet. The score was then the total number of tries after
subtracting the repetitious ones. The range was from 18 to 2.

c) The uniqueness of the responses was determined by counting the number

18

of children who responded in the same way for each different attempt
the child made. Thus, a child who has 20 responses but only eight
different responses would receive scores for each of the eight dif-
ferent responses. If on the first of the eight responses, 15 other
children responded the same way, the child would receive a score of
15 for that particular response. If on the second response there
were only two who responded the same way, the child would receive a
score of 2 for the second response. For each of the different re-
sponses (in this case 8), the child would then have a separate score.
Each of these scores would be totaled and then divided by the number
of scores being added to obtain an average uniqueness score. This,
then, was the uniqueness score for the Dog and Bone measure. The
range of scores was from 22 to 4.07, with the lowest score represent-

ing the greater uniqueness.

2) Playschool Blocks
The materials used were Playschool blocks varying in size,

shape, and color. The experimenter sat down with the child and the
blocks. The instructions were: "I can put the blocks on top of each
other and build something like this (takes four blocks and stacks them
vertically). Or, I can lay them side by side, and build something like
this (places them together horizontally). There are many different ways
to build things with blocks, can you show me some others?" The game
continued until the child lost interest.
a) The number of blocks used is a total of the number of blocks a child

used. There were a total of 66 blocks available. Therefore, the

highest score possible for this measure was 66. There was a range

b)

C)

d)

19

from three to 66.

Different colors. The score for this was a total of the number of

 

different colored blocks the child chose. Six different colors were
available, so the highest score a child could obtain was six.

Unique shapes. The same procedures for scoring uniqueness were used.

 

First of all, a list was made of the different shapes of blocks a
child could choose from. Each of these blocks was given a correspond-
ing number to identify it. Each shape then received a number which
was the total number of children who used that particular shape. Each
shape the child chose was given this corresponding number, and all of
these numbers were totaled and then divided by the total number of
shapes the child has used. This comprised the uniqueness of shapes
score for the blocks.

Elaboration of construction. A point system was set up whereby the

 

children received points for the complexity of their construction.

The point system was as fellows:

A) If the child's construction consisted of placing blocks side by
side or adjacent to each other, they received one point.

B) If, in the context of doing this, they created a box or enclosed
area, they received two points.

C) If they put one or more blocks on top of another block, they re-
ceived two points.

D) If they build something by using two blocks to support a third in
some type of arch pattern, they received three points.

E) If they developed a clear pattern such as alternating the block
direction while building vertically, they received three points.

All of these points which a child received were then added to

20

obtain his total uniqueness score for construction. In this measure,
opposite from the others, the more elaborate the construction, the

higher the score. The range was from 11 to one.

3) Drawing of Self

The materials used were a white sheet of paper and a set of
colored markers with a choice of nine colors. At the completion of the
previous two exercises, the child was asked to draw a picture of himself.
The markers were placed in front of him, out of their container, and the
experimenter began by saying, "Use any of the colors you like, and take
as much time as you want. I would like you to draw a picture of yourself.
Put into the picture anything else you would like to." This exercise
continues until the child feels that he is done. There were three scores
to this measure: One for uniqueness of colors chosen, one for the number
of distinct lines, and a third was a uniqueness score for unusual aspects
of the person.

a) The number of colors used is a total of the number of colors a child

 

used. There were nine markers offered to each child-—making the
highest score possible for this measure a nine.

b) The uniqueness of colors used in the child's picture was obtained by

 

counting how many children used each of the colors. Each color a
child used was then given this number. These numbers were added for
each child and then divided by the number of colors the child used.

c) Distinct lines is a total of distinct or separate lines in the child's
picture. This score was somewhat subjective in that the examiner de-
cided what constituted a distinct part or line.

d) Uniqueness was arrived at in the following way. The examiner made a

21

list of all the recognizable body parts in all of thecfidldrens' pictures.
After this list was compiled, each item on the list was given a number.
This number consisted of the total number of children that had this
particular item in their picture. Each item that a child had in his pic-
ture from this list was then given the appropriate number which corres—
ponded with that item. These numbers were added up for each child and
divided by the number of items. This score then constituted the unique-

ness score. Again the lower the score the more unique the drawing.

Testable Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 1: There will be a substantial congruent validity
among the three tests for creativity.

Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the average level
of creativity as measured by the three tests be-
tween the older and younger group of children.

Hypothesis 3: There will be equal amounts of diversity among
the younger and older children.

Hypothesis 4: Quantity will not be correlated with quality.

Analysis

In order to investigate the research questions the fellowing
analyses were done. In order to test Hypothesis 1, the congruent valid—
ity of the tests was determined by analyzing the correlations among the
measures. The concern was the extent to which quality and quantity

measures tended to transfer from one activity and medium to another.

This will be indicated by the extent to which the measures correlate
with each other.
Differences between older and younger children in Hypothesis 2

were determined by using analysis of variance procedures. This statis-

22

tical technique was chosen because it made it possible to do multi as
well as univariant analysis. Thus it was possible to test the additive
as well as the individual affect of the creativity measures. The older
and younger age groups were established by splitting the group in the
middle. Those who were three years old were in one group and the four
year olds were in the second group. The differences in means for the two
groups were tested using the standard F test of the Analysis of variance.
In order to test Hypothesis 3, the differences in variances were tested
by using the Hartley procedure (Weiner, 1971) for testing homogeneity
of variances.

Lastly, the relationship between quality and quantity hypothe-
sized was investigated by again considering the correlations among and

within the tests for these two types of measures.

Summazy

In a play-like atmosphere, with no time constraints, 30 chil-
dren between the ages of 3 and 4 were tested. A design was set up to
study the uniqueness of children's responses across a range of three
tasks. The first procedure was the "dog and bone" which required the
children to think of different routes which a dog could use to get his
bone. The second test involved the use of blocks varying in size, shape
and color. The children were asked to build something with the blocks.

The last test required the child to draw a picture of himself with a

set of nine colored markers. Each task was then rated for uniqueness.

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

Means and standard deviations for the measures are presented in
Table 2.

Hypothesis 1: There will be a substantial congruent validity
among the three tests for creativity.

The results of the analysis for congruent validity of the tests
is presented in Tables 3 and 4. Multitrait-multimethod techniques of an-
alysis can be modified to analyze the results (see Campbell and Fiske,
1959 for a full explanation of the procedures.) Using this method, por-
tions of two different tests designed to measure the same theoretical
construct should correlate highly. Separate portions designed to measure
different theoretical constructs should not correlate.

In the correlations among uniqueness scores for the three tests
there seem to be some of these trends (see Table 3 and 4). The first
thing that is evident from Table 3 is the complete lack of any signifi-
cant correlations for the Dog and Bone uniqueness score with any of the
other scores. The lack of correlation is surprising and would indicate
that the uniqueness scores of the Dog and Bone when compared to the others
is not measuring the same conceptual dimensions. Perhaps a higher level
of creativity is being tapped. In the other two measures, the external
cues are provided and the child responds. In the Dog and Bone, the
child internally visualizes his actions. This is perhaps a more diffi-
cult level of creativity.

Significant correlations were feund among measures from the Pic—
ture of Self measure and the Blocks measure (see Table 3). There seems

to be high transferability of what might be called the content of crea-

23

24

tivity. Shapes from the blocks exercise and lines from the picture ex-
ercise were highly correlated. They were both also significantly relat-
ed to the colors uniqueness score from the picture exercise. A negative
relationship seems to exist between what has been referred to as the
elaboration score and all other scores.

It must be remembered that for all uniqueness scores the lower
the number, the greater the uniqueness. For the elaboration score in
the construction, the higher the number, the more positive the score.

A positive correlation between these two sets of measures would indi-
cate a negative relationship. Thus the elaboration score, conceptually,

was positively related to all scores.

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations fer Measures of Creativity

n = 30
Standard
Mean Deviation

Dog 6 Bone/Quantity 15.1 10.4
Dog & Bone/Difference 9.7 10.3
Dog 8 Bone/Uniqueness 11.8 14.1
Picture/Colors/Quantity 4.3 3.2
Picture/Colors/Uniqueness 19.4 7.3
Picture/Lines/Quantity 30.0 25.3
Picture/Lines/Uniqueness 18.6 13.2
Block/Quantity 24.9 25.1
Block/Colors/Difference 4.0 1-5
Block/Colors/Uniqueness 2.3 .3
Block/Construction/Uniqueness 10.8 17.3

25

Table 3

Correlations of Uniqueness

Scores for the Three Creativity Tests

 

 

n=30
Uniqueness Score (1) (2) (3) ‘(4)’ (5)
Dog 8 Bone (l) l
Picture/Colors (2) .15 l
Picture/Lines (3) -.15 .29 1
Blocks/Shapes (4) -.04 .36* .86** l
Blocks/Elaboration (5) .03 -.83*** -.32* -.40** l

 

*p < .05
**p < .01
***P < .001

26

Table 4

Correlations of Quantity and Difference

Scores for the Three Creativity Tests

 

 

n=30
Quantity Score (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)7
Dog & Bone/Quantity (l) 1
Dog 6 Bone/Difference (2) .71*** 1
Picture/Colors/Quantity (3) -.08 -.23 1
Picture/Lines/Quantity (4) .32* .38* .24 l
Blocks/Quantity (5) .30* .46** .08 .34* l
Blocks/Colors/Difference (6) .20 -.18 .36 .04 .03

 

*P < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001

27

The correlations among the quantity and difference measures
yielded slightly different results (see Table 4). Significant
correlations exist across what seem to be common media, i.e. number
of colors in the picture was significantly positively related to
number of colors used in the blocks. Number of lines in the picture
was related to number of blocks used in the block construction.
Relationships were not found among the different media within the
same exercise. Number of colors used in the blocks did not predict
the number of blocks chosen. Number of colors in the picture was not
at all related to number of lines in the picture. Overall no real

relationship between quantity measures and difference measures were visible.

Only in the dog and bone was there a relation between the number of attempts
and the uniqueness of these attempts. Evidently on that
exercise the more times the child tried the more likely he was either
by chance or skill to discover different routes to the dog house. The
fact is that on the other two exercises the quantity scores did not
predict the difference scores. This would indicate that it may well
have been just chance and the structure of the exercise on the dog
and bone exercise which allowed quantity to predict difference. That
is, the more times that the child tried the more different routes he/she
tried. In fact these were the instructions of the exercise. "Are
there any other different ways the dog can get his bone?"

Dog and Bone quantity and difference scores were related to
the number of lines in the picture and the number of blocks in the
block construction exercise. This again seems to support the concept

of transferability of different media orientations. Across exercises,

28

lines, shape of blocks, and paths seem to relate together and come from
perhaps the same content orientation. They are highly correlated
across the exercises. On the other hand colors on one exercise relates
to colors on another exercise. What is also interesting is that these
two groups of factors do not relate together. For example, someone

may be very prone to use numerous paths but that doesn't necessarily
mean that they will also vary along the dimensions of color and con—
struction. Hypothesis 1 was partially accepted. With the substitution
of Dog 5 Bone difference score for DOg G Bone uniqueness scores -- an

overall creativity score was developed and accepted.

Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the average level
of creativity as measured by the three tests between
the older and younger group of children.

Hypothesis 3: There will be equal amOunts of diversity among the
younger and older children.

The analysis of differences in the age groupings yielded no
significant results. None of the mean values for the measures of
either quantity or quality were different for the two age groups
(see Table 5). Also as would be expected with these results the
multivariant F was not significant (F = .50, p < .88, n.s.). The
older group of children were simply not any more creative in the
uniqueness categories nor did they make any more attempts than the
younger group of children.

In general, no differences between the variance for the two
groups were found (see Table 6). This would indicate that there still

exists the same amount of variation at the older as the younger age.

29

Perhaps this is in part due to the small sample size created by
splitting the original sample. Therefore Hypotheses 2 and 3 were

supported.

Table 5

Analysis of Variance for Younger

and Older Children

 

 

n=30

Ybunger Older

Group Group MS
Dog 6 Bone/Quantity ‘ 17.07 13.33 104.53 .75
Dog 8 Bone/Difference -13.20 6.27 360.53 .44
Dog 8 Bone/Uniqueness 14.77 18.88 126.61 .65
Picture/Colors/Quantity 4.47 4.27 0.30 .02
Picture/Colors/Uniqueness 22.35 16.57 251.02 .41
Picture/Lines/Quantity -36.87 23.37 1387.20 .86
Picture/Lines/Uniqueness 17.88 19.49 19.44 .09
Block/Quantity 26.20 23.80 43.20 .06
Block/Colors/Difference 4.07 4.00 0.03 .01
Block/Colors/Uniqueness 2.34 2.38 0.01 .06
Block/Construction/Uniqueness -13.93 7.87 276.03 .69

*p < 3.60
**p < .01
steep < .001

Multivariate F = F .50, p < .88

30

Table 6

Homogeniety of Variances

 

n=30

Younger Older
Dog Bone/Quantity 190.99 85.75
Dog Bone/Difference 489.29 13.18
Dog Bone/Uniqueness 110.25 276.89
Picture/Color/Quantity 11.16 9.35
Picture/Color/Uniqueness 20.07 1.56
Picture/Lines/Quantity 866.12 6.23
Picture/Lines/Unique 106.05 311.52
Blocks/Quantity 709.16 607.62
Blocks/Difference/Colors 2.62 2.56
Blocks/Uniqueness/Shapes .08 .24

Blocks/Uniqueness/Elaboration 580.87 213.16

 

31

Hypothesis 4: Quantity (number of times tried) will not be correlated
with quality (uniqueness or creativity scores).

In order to investigate whether quantity led to quality,
correlations between the two types of measures were developed for
each of the tests (see Table 7).

Interestingly, the dog and bone difference score seems to be
the most related of all the quality (uniqueness) measures. However,
consistent with other results reported, the dog and bone quantity
score does not predict its own uniqueness score. The only other
consistent positive predictor of uniqueness is the quantity measure
for the lines in the picture exercise.

Two measures which were consistently negatively related to
the uniqueness scores were the quantity measure for colors in the
picture and the difference score for the blocks and colors. Again
they were totally unrelated to the uniqueness score for the dog and
bone exercise. These results suggest that the dog and bone difference
score is perhaps the more congruent measure of creativity.

If the dog and bone difference score is substituted for the
dog and bone uniqueness score and added to the rest of the uniqueness
scores, an overall creativity score can be developed. The reliability
of this score can be assessed by applying the Spearman-Brown Prophecy
fermula to the mean inter-item correlation. Using this procedure the
reliability of the combined measure for creativity is .88. This more

than adequately demonstrates the congruent validity of the scores.

32

Table 7

Correlations Between Uniqueness and Quantity

Scores for the Three Creativity Tests

 

 

 

 

n-30
Quantity Uniqueness Score
Score
DogGBone Picture Picture Blocks Blocks
Unique— Color Lines Shapes Construc-
ness Uniqueness _Uniqueness tion
Dog 8 Bone/
Quantity .02 .50** .16 .01 -.38*
Dog 8 Bone/
Difference -.1O .82*** .39* .32* -.77*
Picture/Color/
Quantity .02 -.36* -.31* -.39* +.35*
Picture/Lines/
Quantity -.06 .39* .43** .35* -.33*
Blocks/Quantity .08 .54*** .27 .26 -.72***
Blocks/Colors/
Difference -.06 -.36* -.33* -.55*** +,41*
*p < .05
**p < .01

***P < .001

33

This would suggest that from an empirical basis it is

entirely acceptable to combine the scores from the three tests to

develop an overall score of creativity. It would however also

suggest that if from a theoretical basis it was desirable to deal with

the two scores separately, this would also be acceptable. Support for

Hypothesis 1 is thus provided.

Summary

The following results were obtained from the study:

1.

The Dog and Bone uniqueness score did not measure
the same conceptual uniqueness dimensions as the
other two tests.

a) There were high correlations between shapes
from the blocks exercise and lines from the
picture exercise.

b) Significant relationships between the number
of colors used in the picture and the number
of colors used in choosing the blocks was
evident. These results suggest a transferabil-
ity of creativity across tests.

Because of reverse scoring methods, a negative
relationship between the elaboration score from
the blocks and uniqueness scores on the other
measures was present.

The quantity of attempts was correlated to the'
uniqueness or creativity score. For lines, paths

and shapes, there was a positive correlation. For
elaboration and colors, there was a negative correla-
tion.

No differences in average level of creativity between
the older and the younger group of children was found.

Equal amounts of diversity were seen among the younger
children and the older children (possibly in part due
to the small sample size).

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary_

The literature reviewed for this study did not give a clear,
concise picture of creativity. However, one component which was
found in all of the definitions cited was the concept of uniqueness
or innovative behavior. The present research focused on this specific
area or ability, without any claim that it is a totally encompassing
view of creativity. Therefore, creativity was defined in this study
' as the exhibition of unique or original behavior in contrast to other
children.

The literature reviewed also contained examples of training
programs to increase creativity. The success of some of these
programs led to the assumption that creativity can be taught, or at
least increased by freeing the individual from some of the obstructions
to it.

Before these assumptions could be tested, it was felt it would
be necessary to have some measure of creativity. While there are
several tests available for the assessment of creativity for older
children and youth, no tests for creativity at the pre-school level
are available. This project, although not constituting a comprehensive
battery of tests for creativity, was a three task procedure to measure
creativity in three and four year old children. The three tasks are
first, "Dog and Bone" which required the children to think of different
routes which a dog could use to get his bone. The second test was

labelled "blocks" and involved the use of blocks varying in size,

34

35

shape and color. The children were asked to build something with the
blocks. The third measure was a picture of the child, drawn by
himself. He was given a set of nine colored markers to use. Each
task was then rated for uniqueness.

Four hypotheses were proposed. First, it was hypothesized
that there would be substantial congruent validity among the three
tests for creativity. This hypothesis was partially accepted. It was
found that the difference score for the Dog and Bone test correlated
very highly with the uniqueness scores on the draw a picture of self
and the blocks exercise. .In fact, when these scores were summed they
formed a highly reliable measure of creativity.

The second hypothesis was that there would be no significant
difference between the uniqueness scores of the older and younger
children. Third, it was hypothesized that there would be equal
amounts of diversity among the younger and older children on the
measures of creativity. .Both hypotheses were accepted. No differences
between the older and younger groups of children were indicated.

The fourth hypothesis was that quantity (number of attempts)
would not correlate with quality (uniqueness or creative score). This
hypothesis was not accepted. Significant relationships were indicated
between quantity scores and quality scores. Sometimes the correlation was
negative and sometimes it was positive. The relationship seemed to be
dependent on the specific nature of the exercise rather than being

constant across exercises.

36

Conclusions and Discussion

 

The Dog and Bone was the only exercise where uniqueness and
quantity were not in some way correlated. This would tend to indicate
that there was no sequence to the components of mental activity that
the Dog and Bone exercise was measuring. However, on the other
exercises there was evidently a definite ordering. A brief explanation
of this conclusion is perhaps appropriate. The positive relationship
between uniqueness and quantity in the draw a picture of self exercise
indicate a definite ordering of uniqueness. For example, on the draw
a picture of self exercise, assume the subject started with the
simplest picture and then added those facial characteristics which
would not only increase the quality score for lines, but also the
uniqueness scores. If a subject were to include only a few lines,
they would most likely be the simplest, most common lines. This
action would naturally also lead to a low uniqueness score.

Conversely, a negative correlation would indicate that the
tendency was for those that were only going to do a very few things
to do the most complex. It is interesting that the color quantity
component is always negatively related to uniqueness. Evidently
subjects tend to be attracted to certain unique colors early in
their construction. Only those who used many colors, started using
the mundane, often used colors, thus lowering their creativity
uniqueness score. Considering these results in general, they would
tend to indicate that for lines and shapes, whathas been referred to
as the content of creativity, individuals evidently move from the
simple to the complex. The creativity starts from a common base and

then builds. For what has been referred to as elaboration, creativity

37

is reversed. Subjects started with the more complex and worked
toward the simpler. The next question which naturally occurs is
whether there are different components to the creativity measure
as applied to young children. The initial analysis tended to
indicate that what have been referred to as content and elaboration
measures display different characteristics and operate independently.
One way to analyze this possibility is to consider the summed scores
for an overall measure of content and elaboration. The reliabilities
of the score can then be compared to the reliability of the overall
measure of creativity. If the reliability were higher it would
suggest that it is more valid to consider the two scores independently.
So far the discussion has dealt totally with the reliability
of the measures. Also of importance is the validity of the measures.
Congruent validity has been analyzed in these exercises. The analysis
suggests that the Dog and Bone uniqueness measure does not deal with
an ability which is common to the other tests. Evidently the structure
of the test limits the expression and measurement of creativity. There
is the problem of not enough alternatives to choose from, whereas in
the other tests, the alternatives are virtually unlimited. Given this
limitation, it is thus more appropriate to use the different number of
paths taken as the measure of creativity. That particular measure
does relate to all other uniqueness scores. Considering the quantity
scores, the same result was obtained. The relationship between
elaboration and any of the other measures, either quantity or
quality, was exactly the reverse of the general relationships. This

is cauSed by the reverse scoring of the elaboration measure.

38

The correlations considering the quantity scores are the
most supportive of the interpretation that there are multi-dimensions
of creativity which transfer across exercises. However, the results
are not exactly as theorized. The commonality and transferability
was related to different mediums and not necessarily different components
of creativity. Instead of there being multi-dimensions to creativity
it appears more likely that an overall concept called creativity
exists which manifests itself in specific ways - depending on the
child. One child might be very much oriented towards color, and the
child's manifestation towards creativity consistently is through the
variations and usage of color. Another child might be oriented towards
lines and shapes, which would result in very different scores on
components of the test, but when they were summed it would'yield a very
similar overall creativity score. This approach would suggest that the
child, through various experiences could be oriented towards color.
Thus the child's creativity would manifest itself through a different
medium, but would still be creativity. Also, presumably none of these
children had been given specific training in creativity, so the results
cannot be explained by training. Thus the distributions represented
the result of individual characteristics and socialization experiences
up to this point in the child's life. .This research cannot determine
whether individual children change or whether training would have an
impact. It does however suggest that without training there are no
giant leaps in creative ability. Without continuous monitoring and
teaching, creativity may not undergo much change. Perhaps what is

likely to happen is that the child shifts to different mediums to

39

manifest creativity. Because there is no particular pattern in the
shifting it does not show up whenever means and variances are used as
the basis of analysis. It would be necessary to conduct longitudinal
studies to fully investigate these possibilities. Because of the
correlational analysis a larger sample size would be beneficial.

In general, the analysis suggests that empirically there is
a component of thinking in young children called creativity which can
be measured and is fairly consistent across exercises. This character-
istic of individuals seems to be most transferable through common
mediums, i.e. color, lines, paths.

Creativity, at least as defined and measured in this research,
does not seem to vary with age in young children. Nor does it seem to
be manifest in different mediums. Children instead seem to be more
oriented toward specific mediums rather than varying across mediums.
Different children do seem to be oriented towards different mediums,
but this variance cannot be explained by any of the variables included
in this study. The importance of including family and socialization
variables in further studies of creativity is evident.

A final observation would be that quantity correlated with
uniqueness, although it was not always a positive correlation. The
relationship between quantity and uniqueness that does exist seems to
be more a function of the nature of the exercise than any inherent
relationships among the characteristics. On some exercises, children
can be very creative and not engage in a lot of activity or production.
On other exercises, as would be expected, some children seem to engage
in a lot of activity and produce a large amount of work, none of

which is very creative.

40

Implications for future research

This research was set up mainly as an exploratory study for
further research to build on. However, as a tool itself it might be
helpful for practitioners in gaining more insight into a child's
abilities. A teacher might recognize potentialities in a child that
might otherwise go unnoticed. On the other hand, a teacher might also
see ways in which a child might be having difficulties and work toward
helping him be aware of other alternatives available to him.
RecOgnizing a child's strengths (perhaps in the use of color) and
being able to build on them would perhaps prove beneficial.

This project could be enhanced in the following ways: The
first is to add several other probable tests of creativity to this
measure to form a more comprehensive measurement and see how it
correlated with the three which were studied here. There is still an
obvious need for some means to adequately evaluate a child's creative
abilities. Although this measure does give us some insight into this
area, it is by no means a complete measurement.

The other possibility would be to do longitudinal studies
with.this.measure to determine whether children shift in the mediums
they use to manifest creativity. Does the school system channel it
away from certain areas and focus it upon others? Would those
children who appeared to be oriented towards color at age 3 still show
the same inclination at age 8?

It should also be pointed out that because of the small
sample size and the limited socio-economic status represented in the

sample, generalizations are limited. Future research should expand

41

sample size and include other socio-economic groups.

Several new possibilities for research were stimulated by this
study. Kogan and Pankove (1972) studied creativity over a five year
span (from 5th grade to 10th grade). They found evidence pointing to
long-term stability of creativity (at least when assessed under specific
conditions). This was an overall creativity measure, and did not focus
upon specific areas or mediums. Although they did not claim conclusive
predictive power, they found evidence suggesting that performance on
creativity measures in the fifth grade had an influence not only on
creativity measures at age 15 or 16, but also in certain cases on the
accomplishments outside of the classroom at this age. Using the two
measures of creativity established for preschool children, it would
also be interesting to set up a longitudinal study to determine the
stability of creativity in general when assessed at such a young age.
Are the same children reacting in more unique ways when looked at
5 years later?

Also of critical importance would be an analysis of the
changing role of the family over time. Studies have not yet been done
which specifically looked at the socialization experience of the child
and how that affected creativity over a period of time. Cross-
sectional studies are available from which viable hypotheses could be
developed for such a longitudinal study.

For example, a number of studies have looked into the type of
homes which produce creative children. MacKinnon, (1962), and Schaefer
and Anastasi, (1968) found that creative children have someone close

to them (a parent or other relative) who provides a model of effectiveness

42

and resourcefulness, and also people in their environment who share
their field of interest. Another factor which the research brought

out was that the parents of creative children show a great deal of
respect for them as individuals and have confidence in their abilities.
They allow them to explore their environment and encourage them in
independent, mature activities. MacKinnon, (1962), Drevdahl, (196M),
and Nichols and Holland, (1963) found that parents of creative children
show a high level of tolerance and a low level of control. This very
likely contributed to their later autonomy and independence.

In a detailed study by Weisberg and Springer (1961) where
they looked at the families of 32 very gifted nine year olds (selected
from a population of 7,000), they were given criterion tests of divergent
thinking. The parents of high-divergers showed expressiveness along
with a lack of domination of their children. They were also very
tolerant of any regressive tendencies in their children. Another
association they found (at a lower level of significance) was that
the fathers had a closer relationship with their children (than non—
divergers) and the mothers displayed little evidence of compulsive
behavior.

One of the negative effects of the parent's non-involvement
in the child's private life in granting him more independence and

autonomy was that one or both parents were more distant and removed.
This may have some bearing on the observation that creative children
engage in more solitary activities than others (MacKinnon, 1962,
Stein, 1963, Drevdahl, 1964). Divergers tend to come from middle or
upper middle class backgrounds. Mackinnon (1962) observed that there

were no financial difficulties in the homes of the divergers.

43

Weisberg and Springer (1961) found a significant association between
the degree to which the father was professionally autonomous and the
child's divergent ability.

MacKinnon (1962) also found that mobile families of the more
creative architects moved quite often. While this would offer a
greater amount of stimulation and experiences, it would also hinder
strong social integration into a neighborhood or community. This
might also have some bearing on the diverger's preference for solitary
activities, mentioned previously.

Another finding which was observed repeatedly by Roe (1952)
is the fact that eminent men are the first child in the family more
often than chance would permit. A study by Brown (1970) also pointed
this out.

These studies provide some idea of the type of home from which
creative children come. There seemed to be negative as well as positive
factors. These views help us avoid the mistake of imagining that
creative children are blessed with the ideal home and a perfect balance
of activities and encouragement to not only produce creative abilities
but also a blissful existence. It becomes obvious that there was some
trade-off of eXperiences. The child's autonomy may have been purchased
at the expense of close, warm family relations. The open expressions of
feelings and disagreement would indicate that the family atmosphere
was not necessarily entirely harmonious.

The idea that we can take the traits which we see emerging
from the families of divergers and compile them into a list and exhort
parents to follow them is seen as an erroneous one. However, are

there some of these traits which could be incorporated with little

44

danger to existing family relationships? For example, parents
could be urged to share the interests of their children and to make
an effort towards becoming avenues of resource for further involvement

into the area of the child's interest or involvement,

It would also seem safe to encourage parents to develop a
confidence in their children's abilities and to encourage the children
in exploring their world to an increased level, but not one beyond
which the parents are comfortable.

Providing materials and new opportunities, without the extreme
of moving frequently, would perhaps aid in the development of creativity
with children.

Although parent education programs will not change to any
great degree the life style of the individual families, it may
enlighten them into more productive use of time and facilities. Knowing
what things contribute to creativity would perhaps help a parent come
closer to meeting goals for the nurturance of creativity.

This Job is not the responsibility of families alone. Research
has pointed out the drop in creativity as children enter school. What.
responsibility then does the school system have in fostering and helping
to maintain the creative abilities of children? Here again there is some
compromising which needs to be done. Where programs can be set up to
encourage the development of creativity.without giving up other
important aspects of the school systems is of course the idea. Perhaps
there would need to be some revision of the objectives of elementary
schools to provide a responsive environment with opportunities for self-

initiated learning, being careful not to eliminate fantasy prematurely,

45

or overemphasize verbal skills related to reading and correct grammer.
According to Torrance (Rice, 1973) the school setting needs to provide
learning experiences where the child can search for self-identification,
uniqueness, and a sense of his own talents. Teachers need to be
respectful of unusual questions and ideas and show children that their
ideas have value. Where credit is given for self-initiated learning,
this type of learning will increase.

Some programs are having success in increasing creative ability
(Torrance and Fortson, 1968, Covington, Crutchfield, Davies, 1969).
Utilizing the knowledge gained by these and other researchers, it would
seem profitable to do a study involving children in the nursery school
over a nine month period of time. The first step would be to compile
a list of guidelines from researchers as to the nurturants of creativity.
The next step would be to set up a program, utilizing the guidelines
mentioned previously, to increase creativity and help children solve
problems more effectively. If the experimental group showed significant
gains, a follow-up study could be done several years later to determine
if their increased ability to solve problems and react to challenges in
a creative manner remained stable, increased with years of practice in
acting innovatively, or dropped off when the stimulus to act creatively
was removed. Hopefully, with increased research and study we will be
able to refine our knowledge about and nurturance of creativity and
increase in children those positive aspects of creativity which will

help them experience life more fully and competently.

"'APPENDIX"

46
APPENDIX A

Letter to Parents

Dear Parent,

I am presently completing work on my Masters Degree. Because
of an interest in art and child development, I am doing my thesis
on the nature of creativity in young children. With your permission,
I would like to involve your child in three different creative
exercises. These exercises will take place at the nursery school
during nursery school time.

1) Dog and Bone: The children are shown a dOg, a bone,
and four dOg houses. They are then asked to find as
many ways as possible for the dog to get his bone.

 

2) Blocks: The children are asked to build whatever
they would like with the blocks provided.

3) Drawing: The children are asked to draw pictures of

themself.

Each task is then rated for creativity. The purpose of the
exercises is to see whether children are consistent in their creativity
or only with certain experiences. There is absolutely no deception
involved in the research and the results of the total research, and for
your child individually, will be made available.

I'm sure your child will enjoy this experience, and I am looking
forward to working with him/her. Could you please indicate below your
willingness to have your child participate and mail it back to me in
the self-addressed envelope enclosed.

Sincerely,

I am willing to have participate
in this project. I understand that participation is'voluntary and that
I may withdraw my child at any time.

 

I would be interested in a capy of the results.
Yes [:1 No [:1

Signed

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
Raw Data
1(Dog and Bone 7 Picture of Self ( Blocks‘
1 f"
u -o '9 '6 .g
a.) m a.) m 0 '0 m-H
i r. a 5 a 8 .. 8 a a: 8:; at; .8
o. E. o c c o a a) fi 0 a n m
H o m m .c g :2 §;z: g g« o 0 'U
'5 3 (3 m 3‘ S 3‘ 3 3 c- 0 :3'3 (76% 333 15
g 3 5:3? g 3 g 35 a 2 a6 Eclga :
a U) 5., Q2 3 U :3 and D co CU 3 av m
1 2 5 4 l6 5 9 15.5 28 1 13 3 2 26.5 5 3/19/71
2‘ 1 12 12 4 91 9 15.5 45 21 6 4 22.5 5 4/4/71
3 L 8 5 17.2 3 18 11 17.4 4 3 23.6 2 4/9/71
4 2 40 8 14.75 9 15.5 98 10.7 42 6 21 6 6/8/71
5 2 14 9 13.7 1 20 22 14.4 4 2 22.5 3 6/10/71
6 1 5 5 11.8 2 16.5 15 15.7 12 4 22.6 9 7/4/71
7 1 15 9 10.22 3 16 39 15.3 8 4 23.2 9 8/19/71
8 1 29 18 4.07 4 17.75 19 18.75 25 6 21 6 10/1/71
9 1 15 4 11.7 7 16.8 42 23 66 6 21 3 10/10/71
10 2 2 2 15.5 9 15.5 47 21 5 3 22 6 11/5/71
11 2 3 3 18 3 17 39 12 7 4 24.3 6 11/26/71
12 2 8 5 13.8 9 15.5 65 12.5 27 6 21 6 2/4/72
13 1 17 8 8.5 2 16 7 20.3 6 5 23.7 3 3/30/72
14 2 19 8 11.37 6 16.16 13 15.5 9 5 21.4 3 3/30/72
15 1 20 8 13.38 1 20 4 20 35 5 24 11 4/15/72
16 2 5 ’ 5 17.2 2 17.5 41 23 11 4 22.6 3 4/17/72
17 2 29 14 7.71 6 17.5 11 13.1 23 5 21 6 4/23/72
18 1 30 9 11.77 2 15 25 15.4 16 5 23.2 3 4/29/72
19 1 16 12 8.83 8 15.8 4 23 4o 6 23.2 3 5/27/72
20 1 8 3 18.33 1 18 8 18.3 4 3 24 1 6/5/72
21 2 3 3 1.66 4 14.7 11 18.6 4 3 23.3 5 7/18/72
22 1 20 9 7.33 4 17 20 16.7 9 2 20 6 8/17/72
23 2 19 8 13.6 5 17 16 14.7 6 6 21 6 8/19/72
24 2 3 2 22 8 16 10 23 66 6 21 5 9/25/72
25 1 3 3 16 1 18 s 23 8 6 22.5 6 9/27/72
26 1 ' 4 2 22 1 15 1 23 3 2 28 1 11/6/72
27 1 17 5 14.8 9 15.5 32 23 6 3 24.3 3 11/16/72
28 2 8 5 15.6 9 15.5 76 23 20 4 21 3 11/25/72
29 2 20 7 ; 18.28 3 18 6 18.6 8 4 22.6 1 12/2/72
30 2 515 7 u 14 7 _ 1 E18 1 10 14.3 16 6 21 J 3 12/23/72
I 11

 

 

48

APPENDIX C

Coding Sheet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child's Name
Response Variability — "Dog and Bone"
#‘ ragga-gr
r11<7x xVx
6
X C2==3 X X <::=:>X
xVx xVx
7
X (2::9 X X C:==3 X
XVX XVX
8
)( c=:=:) X X c::==9)(
XVX xvx
9
x63." 11%):
E=r_iin
XVX.» XV):
10
Score “_*
Number of
Different

Ways

 

"BIBLIOGRAPHY"

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, E. G., "The Dev. of Imagination in the pre-school child,"
University of Iowa Studies in Character, 1930, 3(4).

Auerbach, A., "The bisociative or creative act in the nursery school,"
Young Children, Oct., 1972, 27-31.

Banta, T. J., "The Montessori Research Project," The American Montessori
Society Bulletin, 1969, Vol. 7, No. 1.

Baroody, A., Brumley, 8., Hocevar, D., and Ripple, R.,”Inf1uencing
teacher's attitudes about creativity," Child Study Journal, 1976,
Vol. 6, No. 1.

Barron, F., "The Psychology of Imagination," Scientific American, 1958,
199, 151-166.

Brown, J., "Percursors of intelligence and creativity: A longitudinal
study of one child's development", Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Jan.
1970, 16; 117-137.

Butler, A., "Creativity", Current Research in Early Childhood Education,
1970, 126-132.

Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W., "Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix", Psychological Bulletin, 1959,
56, 81-105.

Cline, V. B., Richards, J. M., and Needham, W. F., "Creativity tests and
achievement in high school science", Journal of Applied Psychology,
1963, 47, 184-189.

Covington, M., Crutchfield, R. S., and Davies, L. B., The Productive
Thinking Program, Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1969.

DeVito, A. "Survival through creative education", The JOurnal of Creative
Behavior, 1976, Vol. 10, No. 1, 45-51.

Drevdahl, J. F., "Some developmental and environmental factors in creativity,"

in C. W. Taylor (ed.) Widening Horizons in Creativity, New York: Wiley,
1964. '

Flescher, 1., "Anxiety and achievement of intellectually gifted and creatively
gifted children", Journal of Psychology, 1963, 19, 137-157.

49

SO

Fugua, W., Bartsch, T., Phye, G., ”An Investigation of the Relationship
between Cognitive Tempo and Creativity in Pre-school Age children"
Child Dev., 1975, 46, 779-782.

Getzel, J. W., and Jackson, P. W., Creativity and Intelligence, New York:
Wiley, 1962.

Gordon, W. J. J., "Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity, New
York: Harper, 1961.

Guildord, J. P., Intelligence, Creativity and their Educational Implications,
San Diego: Knapp, 1968.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 1976, Vol. 10, No. l.
Koestler, A., The Act of Creation, New York: Dell Publishing C0,, 1967.

Kegan, N., and Pankove, E., "Creative ability over a five-year span",
Child Development, 1972, 43, 427-453.

Kubie, in Butler's A "Creativity", Current Research in Early Childhood
Education, 1970, 126-132.

Lytton, H.. Creativity and Education, New York: Schocken Books Inc., 1972.

MacKinnon, D. W., ”The nature and nurture of creative talent", American
Psychologist, 1962, 17, 484-495.

Nichols, R. C., and Holland, J. L., "Prediction of the first year college
performance of high aptitude students", Psychological Monographs,
1963, 77, 1-29.

Osborn, A., Applied Imagination, New York: Scribners, 1953.

Parnes, S. J., "Education and Creativity", Teacher's College Record, 1963,
64, 331-339.

Parnes, S. J., and Noller, R. B., "Applied creativity: the creative studies
prOJect", Journal of Research and Development in Educatiodt Spring, 1971,
4 (3), 63-66. ‘

Pulsifer, S. N., Children are Poets, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Dresser,
Chapman, and Crimes, 1963.

Rice, Patty, "Why aren't we more creative than we are and what to do
about it", The Macomb Teacher, Jan. 73, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 5.
Roe, A“, "A psychOIOgist examines sixty-feur eminent scientists" S ' ' '
c1en
American, 1952, 187, 21-5. ’ tlflc

Roweton, W., "Creativity: Idea Quantity and Idea Quality", Child Study
Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, 1972, 83-89.

51

Schaefer, C. F., and Anastasi, A., "A biographical inventory for
1 identifying creativity in adolescent boys", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1968, 52, 42-48.

Starkweather, in Butler's "Creativity", Current Research in Early
Childhood Education, 1970, 131-132. -

Stein, M. 1., "A transactional approach to creativity", in C. W.
Taylor and F. Barron (eds.) Scientific Creativity: Its
RecOgnition and Development, New York: Wiley, 1963.

Torrance, E. P., "Current research in the nature of creative talent",
Journal of Counselling Psychology, 1959, 6, 309-316.

Torrance, E. P., "Factors Affecting Creative Thinking in Children:
An interim Research report" Merrill Palmer Quarterly VII, 1961,
171-180.

Torrance, E. P., Guiding Creative Talent, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1962.

Torrance, E. P., Rewarding Creative Behavior, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965 a.

Torrance, E. P., "Bringing Creative'Thinking into Play", Education,
1965b, 85, 547-550.

Torrance, E. P., "Can we teach children to think creatively?" Journal
of Creative Behavior, 1972, 6, No. 2, 114-143.

Torrance, E. P., and Fortson, L. R., "Creativity among young children
and the creative-aesthetic approach", Education, 1968, 89, 27-30.

Torrance, E. P. and Cowan, J., "The reliability of the Minnesota tests of
creative thinking", (Research Memorandum BER-63-4) Minneapolis:
Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota, 1963.

Wallach, M. A., and Kogan, N., Modes of Thinking in Young Children,
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

Weisberg, P. S., and Springer, K. J., "Environmental factors in creative
function", Archives of General Psychiatry, 1961, 5, 64-74.

White, R., The First Three Years of Life, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1975, 103-150.

YOChim, L. B., Perceptual Growth in Creativity, Scranton, Pennsylvania:
International Textbook Co., 1967.

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV.

ll 1 mm W m m 1111111111“

3129310070158