A PILOT IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ' ACADEMIGAILY 'TALENTEDVCREATIVE ADOLESCENT , Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.’ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘William Harry Crawford C 196.4 I THESE? 3 1293 10454 3958 ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A PILOT IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ACADEMICALLY TALENTED CREATIVE ADOLESCENT presented by William Harry Crawford has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Education major professor Date Ma 19 19 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan Stan _ University ' ABSTRACT A PILOT IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ACADEMICALLY TALENTED CREATIVE ADOLESCENT by William Harry Crawford A. The Problem The purpose of the main study in this thesis was twofold: (l) to identify, within a group of academically talented adolescents, those students who perform consistently in an original or creative way; and (2) to establish the relationship between a composite originality score and a variety of personality, achievement, intellectual, and personal characteristics in order to find a way to describe the more original in contrast to the less original academically talented adolescent. Sex differences were accounted for throughout the study. Two subbstudies were performed to compare: (1) the student who scored above the mean on originality but below the mean on intelli- gence with those who scored above the mean on intelligence but below the mean on originality; and (2) the extremes of the group who scored very high and very low on originality. B. The Method The sample consisted of 125 academically talented adolescents (average Stanfbrd Binet IQ's were 133.46) from the public schools of Lansing, Michigan. The group included 42 boys and 83 girls who had William H. Crawford been selected two years earlier by Dr. Elizabeth Drews for a special program which was part of a larger study of student abilities and grouping,* All data except for the Guilford tests was collected for and used in this study that had been funded by COOperative Research. The criterion of originality in this study was a composite score derived from four measures, which were changed to standard scores and added for the composite score. The four components of the Composite score were the ratings for cleverness, remoteness, and uncommonness of response on a story of a fictional person the student would like to be; the ratings from Guilford's Consequences; the ratings on Guilfbrd's Plot Titles tests; and a rating on originality from a sociometric device. The composite originality score was correlated with a number of measures including IQ, achievement test scores, personality test scores, and personal history items, and was also related to a number of responses from two questionnaires. C. Results The principal hypothesis in this study was that the consistently original student could be identified and that he would differ in a number of characteristics from the Consistently non-original student. This did not prOVe to be the case as there were not significant correlations among the four main factors in the composite originality *Eflizabeth Monroe Draws, Student Abilities, Grouping Patterns, and Classroom Interaction. Office of Research and Publications, Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. December, 1963. (Cooperative Research Grant #608.) l— William H. Crawford score. Since this hypothesis was not met, the study gives equivocal results which are difficult to interpret and the interpretations can be seen only as possible explanations of the data. The results raise questions as to the adequacy of the instruments used to determine originality and of the worth of combining them into a composite score. The more original boy, as selected by this composite score, seems to achieve better in school in terms of grades and scores higher on standardized achievement tests, and tends more often to select a theoretical scientific vocation than does the less original boy. No personality description which would differentiate the more original boy can be given since the few significant correlations which appeared could be accounted for by chance. Results which discriminate the more original girl from the less original girl were even more scant. There was a pattern which suggests that these 15 year old girls of both groups are already conforming to the stereotyped feminine role of being interested in social life, of becoming the typical wife and mother, and of having a primary desire for a happy home life. The subastudies have implications for future research in that those students who soored high on the composite originality score also tended to SCore high on all of its Components. A comparison of those above the mean on originality but below the mean on IQ with those below the mean on originality but above the mean on IQ seemed to select out the "Social leaders". Contrasting those very high on originality with those who were very low on originality seemed to select out the "good students" who were high aspiring and high achieving. It is William H. Cranord believed that a more complex and diverse definition of originality needs to be used in research with adolescents and that the primarily verbal nature of the originality instruments used in this thesis identified more the good student than the highly original student who was being sought. A PILOT IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ACADEMICALLY TALENTED CREATIVE ADOLESCENT BY William Harry Crawford A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administrative and Educational Services 196k Fri . .3 /7CC’ /~(;3 7’ Acknowledgments I wish to express my appreciation to my major professor, Dr. Elizabeth M. Drews, and my committee members, Dr. Donald L. Grumnon, Dr. Buford Stefflre, Dr. William Farquhar and Dr. John Hurley, for their time, consideration, and help in the completion of this disser- tation. In California, I wish to thank Dr. John P. De Cecco of San Fran- cisco State College for his great help with the ratings of the origi- nality instruments used in this thesis. To Mr. Austin Frank, I am grateful for his kind help as a statistical consultant. To Mrs. Barbara A. Kirk and Dr. Esselyn Rudikoff of the University of California Counseling Center, I wish to express sincere thanks for their support and encouragement. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses for Sub-Studies . Overview of the Thesis . . . II . Tm mTI-m O O O O Q O O O O O samle O O O O O O C I O O 0 Measures . . . . . . . . . . Statistics . . . . . . Further Description of the Sample 8 Mary I O O O O I O O O C III. SURVEY OF LITERATURE . . . . . Process Definitions . . . . Product Definitions . . . . The Criterion Problem . . . ,Definition of Originality in Use of Sociometric Data as a Measure of O O O O O O I O O D O O O O O This Study GuiJford'S ResearCh o o o o o o o o o 0 Studies Using Guilford's Test a I 0 I o O O O Q 0 O O 0 one... 0 O O O o o Orj-g j—nal ity O O O O O D O O C O O O O C C 0 Uses of Projective Devices as Measures of Originality Relationship of Intelligence Creativity and Personality . Swnmary........... IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . Criterion of Originality . . Main Hypothesis. . . . . . . iii 0 O O O 9 O 0 O C O O I C O Q and Creativity O O C 0 O O O 000-00 to... I... O O O 0 O O I O O O O O O O O C I 0 O U O O 0 C O O O O O O Page H Originality Versus Intelligence . . . . . . . Originality Versus Achievement Originality Versus Personality Originality Versus Concept of Self-as-School- Learner Originality Versus Dogmatism and Rigidity . Originality Versus Personal History Items . Originality Versus Interests Originality Versus Profiles . . . . . . . . Origimlity Versus Occupational A3piration. Originality Versus Sociometric Measures . . O O O O O O O C O O O O O O Originality Versus Ordinal Status smryooooooooooooo Discussion 0 O 0 O O 0 O O Q C 0 Summary............. V. SUB-STUDY--THE HIGHLY ORIGINAL VERSUS NTELLIGENT............. Sample . . MethOd O O O 0 O O RGSflts O O O O O 0 Summary . . . . . . C O O 0 VI. SUB-STUDY--THE HIGH ORIGINAL VERSUS Method Sample . . . . . . Resulw . . . C . . SW17 0 o o o o 0 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Purposes . Hypotheses . . . . Sample 0 o o o o 0 Measures . . . . . O O O 0 Statistical Procedure Resflts 0.0 o o o 0 Summary and Results Conclusions . . . . APPENDIX-~RATING PRCBEDURES . . Introduction . . Consequences Test . Plot Titles . . . . The A3 Test 0 o o o BIBLIQRAPHY of Sub-St O O C O O O O O O O 0 O 0 iv udi es 0 O O C O O O I O O C O O O O 0 THE 0 O O O O O O O O 0 C O D O O C O O O O O O O 0 LOW HIG HLY O O O O O O O O O O O . ORIG INAL . 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 112 113 12 5 127 127 127 128 139 175 197 LIST OF TABIES TABIE 10 13 15 Means and Standard Deviations of IQ's, Achievement Mea- sures, and Personal and Social Variables, for the Males, FemeS,andTOta-lsampleo o o o ’,' 0 on o o o o o o. o 0 Frequency Distribution of Social Status According to Categories on the Index of Status Characteristics. . . . . . Frequency Distribution of Religious Preference . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Norm Groups and for the Present Sample on the Cattell IBPQ Factors . . . . . . . Intercorrelations of Originality Measures for Combined and Separate Males and Females. . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Originality Measures forBoys, Girls, andTotalSample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability Between Two Raters on Ratings of OriginalityMeasures.................... Correlations Between each Originality Measure and Stanford- Binet IQs for Boys, Girls, and the Total Sample. . . . . . . C orrelations Between Achievement Variables and Measures of Originality for Boys, Girls, and Total Sample . . . . . . Correlations Between Stanford-Binet IQs and Achievement Measures for Boys, Girls and Total Sample. . . . . . . . . . Correlations Between Personality Factors on the Cattell BPQ and Measures of Originality for the Total Group . . . . Correlations Between Personality Factors on the Cattell BPQ and Measures of Originality for the 83 Girls Studied. . Correlations Between Personality Factors on the Cattell E’PQ and. Measures of Originality for the 1:2 Boys Studied . . Intercorrelations of Attitude Checklist for Boys, GirlsandTotalSample................... Correlations between Attitude Checklist Items and Mea- sures of Originality for Boys, Girls and Total Sample. . . . Page 16 18 18 19 52 55 S7 59 61 62 6h 65 69 7O TABLE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Correlations between Measures of Originality and Rokeach Scales for Boys, Girls and Total Sample . . . . . . Correlations Between S-B IQs and Achievement Measures and Rokeach Scales for Boys, Girls and Total Sample . . . . Correlations Between Measures of Originality and Personal History Items for Boys, Girls and Total Sample. . . . . . . Number of Times (Expressed in Percentages) Each of Fifteen Future Life Choices was Selected as First, Second or Third Choice by Boys Studied on a Survey of Interests . . . . . . Number of Times (Expressed in Percentages) Each of Fifteen Future Life Choices was Selected as First, Second or Third Choice by Girls Studied on a Survey of Interests. . . . . . Number of Responses (Expressed in Percents) by Boys and Girls to Three Interest Survey Items . . . . . . . Percentage of Interest Choices for Boys and Girls Above and Below the Median for Originality. . . . . . . Percent of Students Above and Below t he Median on the Composite Originality Score and Total Group Choosing Each of Four Descriptive Profile Types . . . . . . . . Occupational Choices for the Forty-two Boys Studied . . Occupational Choices for the Eighty-three Girls Studied Correlations Between Measures of Originality and Socio- metric Measures for Boys, Girls and Total Sample. . . . Intercorrelations of Sociometric Measures for Boys, Girls and Total Sample 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o Ordinal Status of Boys, Girls and Total Group Above and Below Median on Originality and Total Group . . . . Means, Standard Deviations and "t" Tests on Significant Variables for High-IQ and High-Origiml Groups . . . . Means, Standard Deviations and "t" Tests on Significant Variables for Thigh-IQ and High-Original Boys . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations and "t" Tests on Significant Variables for High-IQ and High-Original Girls . . . . . Percentages of Interest Choices for High-Original andegh-IQGirlsandBoys.............. vi Page 72 7h 75 77 79 85 86 88 90 91 93 9h 97 115 116 119 TABLE 33 3h 35 36 37 38 39 140 141 ’42 113 M 15 Percentages of Descriptive Profile Choices for High- OriginalandHigh-IQBoysandGirls . . . . . . . . . . . . Ordinal Status of High-Original and High-IQ Boys and GirlsExpressedinPercentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentages of Beeponses to Various Interest Survey Items by High-Original and High-IQ Boys and Girls . . . . . . . . Occupational Aspirations of High-Original and High-IQ Girls Occupational Aspirations of High-Original and High-IQ Boys. Significant Mann-Whitney "U"-Tests of High-Original versus Low-Original Boys and Girls on AE Remoteness . . . . . . . Significant Mann-Whitney "IN-Tests on High-Original versus Low-Original Boys and Girls on A-E Uncommonness . . . . . . Significant Mann-Whitney "U"-Tests on High-Original versus Low-Original Boys and Girls on A-E Cleverness . . . . . . . Significant Mann-Whitney "U"-Tests on High-Original versus LOW‘original Girls and Boys on Tatal A“Eo o o o o o o o o 0 Significant Mann-Whitney "U" -Tests on High-Original versus Low-Original Boys and Girls on Plot Titles Test . . . . . . Significant Mann-Whitney "U"-Tests on High-Original versus Low-Original Boys and Girls on Consequences Test . . . . . Significant Mann-Whitney "U"-Tests on High-Original versus Low-Original Boys and Girlson Sociometric. . . . . . . . . Significant Mann-Whitney "IV-Tests on High-Original versus Low-Original Boys and Girls on Composite Originality Score. vii Page 121 - 121 122 12 3 12h 130 131 132 13h 135 137 138 1140 Chapter I The Problem (he of the current emphases in American education is directed toward the identification and proper training of scientific and crea- tive talent. Within the past decade the nation has become increas- ingly aware of the need for experimentation in the field of creativ- ity in order to preserve its world power and leaders hip position. Technological advancements are far in advance of the general compre- hension within the behavioral sciences. Many hypothesize this in it- self he been a contributing factor in our society's resultant devel- apnent of insecurity. The complexity of our society has led to a highly structured socialization process which in turn has condoned conformity and inhibited creativity. Social scientists are now seek- ing a remedy for this unfortunate turn of events. Psychologists and educators have a twofold purpose in mind in studying creativity. First of all, there is full recognition of the necessity of identifying and developing creative talent with an eye toward national security. Secondly, these same groups are always interested in deve10pment of the potential of the individual. It is hoped' that through the study of creativity, understanding will develop which will lead to the fostering and teaching of creativity to help man develop more fully as a human being. From this eventually will come a society of beings more closely approaching self-actmlization and having more emotional security. Behavioral s cientists are interes- ted not only in the creative scientist but in the creative person in all fields in hopes of bringing the study of man to the point of un- derstanding that the world has in the technological fields. For it is the unity of knowledge that can bring peace to man and man- kind. The study presented on the following pages was an attempt to identify and describe the more original students in a select group of academically talented adolescents. The theoretical basis for such an attempt was derived from a statement in Frank Barron's writings on creativity. "Original responses, it would seem, recur regularly with some persons, while there are other individuals who do not ever de- part from the stereotyped and the conventional in their thinking. If, then, some persons are regularly original while others are regu- larly unoriginal, it must be the case that certain patterns of rela- tively enduring traits either facilitate or impede the production of original acts." (3) It must be noted here that this study was designed and the data collected four years ago. Since that time research has been published on creativity and originality which in merit far exceeds the attempt made in this thesis, and as is frequently the case, makes an earlier study such as this was look more feeble than it would have a few years back. The design is weak because there was no outside criterion of originality available for this adolescent age group. Two of Guilford’s tests of originality were used because at the time they were the only available ones with prior research done on them. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the main study in this thesis was twofold: (l) to identify, within a group of academically talented adolescents, those students who perform consistently in a relatively original or creative way; and (2) to establish the relationship between a composite origi- nality score and a variety of personality, achievement, intellectual, and personal characteristics in order to find a way to describe the original in contrast to the less original academically talented ado- lescent. Sex differences were accounted for throughout the study. THO sub-studies were performed to compare: (1) the student who scored above the mean on originality but below the mean on intelligence with those who scored above the mean on intelligence but below the mean on originality; and (2) the extremes of the group who scored very high and very low on originality. ~ mgtheses: The principle hypothesis in this study is that the consistently original or creative student can be identified and that he will differ in a number of characteristics from the consistently less original or non-creative student. 1. The more original students will score higher on intelligence than the less original students. 2. The more original students will more often be high achievers, both as to achievement test scores and grade point averages, than the less original students. 3. The more original students will have a personality profile on Cattell's High School Personality Questionnaire which is different from the profile of the less original students. This profile will in large part be similar to those found in previous studies for creative adults. 1:. The more original students will have a more positive self concept of thmelves as learners than the less original students. 5. The more original students will be less rigid and less dog- matic on the Rokeach scales than the less original students. 6. The more original students will not differ from the less original students in socioeconomic status or parent's education. ggpotheses for Sub-studies 1. Sex Differences - The more original male students will differ from the more original female students but the direction of these dif- ferences cannot be hypothesized. 2. Effects of Intelligence - The more original students, low on intelligence, when compared to the less original students, high on intelligence, will be different, but the direction of these differ- ences cannot be hypothesized. 3. Extremely High versus Extremely Low on Originality - Using the extremes of the group, differences are expected to emerge, but their direction cannot be hypothesized. Overview of the Thesis The study used 125 academically talented students from the Lansing, Michigan public schools who had been previously identified for their schools' gifted programs. The study included h2 boys and 83 girls. They were tested at the end of the ninth and beginning of the tenth grades. The sample had a mean Stanford-Binet I.Q. of 133.h6. Four measures of originality were used: Guilford's Plot Titles, Guilford's Consequences test, a short projective test asking the student to write a story of a fictional person he would like to be, and a socio- metric rating of creativity. The Plot Titles test was scored for clev- erness of response, the Consequences test for remoteness of response, and the Projective Story for cleverness, remoteness, and uncommonness of response. Scoring categories were defined by two raters, and these can be found in the appendix of the thesis. The six scores from these originality measures were changed to standard scores and summated for a composite score. The composite originality score was then correlated with personality test scores, personal history items, achievement and intelligence test scores. Sex differences were always accounted for. Using extreme groups within the sample, two sub-studies were per- formed to see how the students high on originality but low on intelli- gence compared to those who were low on originality but high on intel- ligence; and to see how those who scored extremely high on originality compared to those who scored very low on originality. Chapter II The Method The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships of the responses of a gifted group of students on four measures prOposed to be tapping originality when related to a variety of achievement tests, personality traits, and personal history items. we The sample consisted of 125 academically talented adolescents from the public schools of Lansing, Michigan. The group included 142 boys and 83 girls. The students were a part of a larger sample comprised of all levels of intelligence who had been tested previously by Eliza- beth M. Drews for her research contract with the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This project number 608 was entitled, uThe Effectiveness of (A) Homogeneous and (B) Heterogeneous Abilitinrouping in Ninth Grade English Classes with Slow, Average, and Superior Students ." For research on the effects of growings, these students were grouped into three categories of mental ability by the use of individual intelligence tests, reading tests, and teacher recomendations. Information had been collected on this group of students and since it was an ongoing research project, additional instruments could be added for this study. It would have been implaus- ible to obtain similar data on other groups of varying mental ability. The tests used in this study were given to the students at the end of the ninth grade (Spring, 1959) , except for the originality tests which were administered at the beginning of the tenth grade (Fall, 1959). This group of superior or academically talented students was com- prised primsrily of students who had Stanford-Binet IQ's of 120 and 6 above and whose reading and language skills were two years above their age group. A few were included with IQ's slightly below 120 but had reading scores two years above their grade placement level, who had been recommended by their teachers for the gifted classes on their knowledge of the students' grades and classroom behavior. Measures A. Criterion of Originality. The criterion of originality was a composite score derived from four measures. The methods of rating these originality variables are included in the appendix. These mea- sures were changed to standard scores and summed for the composite score. The four components of the criterion of originality were as follows: 1. Guilford's Plot Titles Test. In this test a story plot was presented, and the subject was asked to write as many clever titles as he could for the pIOto 2. Guilford's Consequences Test. The subject was to write what would happen if certain changes were to take place. He was to list as many consequen- ces or results of these changes as he could to two different situations . 3. The A-E Test. This was a short projective device on which the student was asked to write a personal history of a completely fictitious person whom he would like to be. h. Sociometric Rating of Creativity. On a socio- metric questionnaire filled out by the students in their classrooms, one question was designed to determine which students were seen as most creative by their peers. This question was: "When your English Class is asked for original (new) ideas, who has the most good ideas?" Each student listed three persons as to first, second, and third choice. Scoring was accomplished in the following manner. The first three components of the composite originality score required subjective judgments. These were done by two raters, and the subject's resultant score was the average of the scores assigned by the two raters. The actual scoring techniques for these three measures are presented in the appendix and are being kept separate because of the complexity of the rating. The score the student received on the Sociometric Rating of Crea- tivity was the sum total of times his name was listed by a peer as one of the most creative members of the class. The weighting system, as determined by first, second, and third choice, could not be hypothe- sized because of the inability of the experimenter to determine what real differences existed between the choices in the minds of the stu- dents doing the ratings. The six scores derived from these four measures were changed to standard scores and added together for the composite originality score. The six scores were the remoteness, uncommonness, and cleverness scores on the fictional person story, the cleverness score on Guil- ford's Plot Titles, the remoteness score on the Consequences test, and the sociometric rating of creativity. Since there was no outside cri- terion of originality each measure of necessity had to be considered equal. That there was no method of weighting the different components of the composite originality score was a basic weakness in the design of this study, but no such criterion was available for the group. Usually ratings of eminence in a particular field or productivity are used as a criterion but no such indices were available or could be for young adolescents. B. Personality Measures. The personality measures included the Rokeach Dogmatism and Rigidity Scales, the Attitude Toward Self-as- School-Learner, and Cattell's High School Personality Questionnaire. The Rokeach Dggmtism and Rigidity Scales. The primary purpose of the Dogmatism Scale is to measure individual differences in Open- ness or closedness of belief systems. Dogmatism refers to the total cognitive organization of ideas and beliefs into relatively closed ideological systems; rigidity is defined in toms of the way a person attacks, solves, or learns specific tasks and problems. The subject responded to a number of statements devised to measure the concepts of dogmatism and rigidity on a six-point scale ranging from, "I agree very much" to "I disagree very much." Attitude Toward Self-as-School-Learner. This checklist was de- vised by Drews and Boroughs based primarily on the results of the lat- ter's MA. thesis, Indices of Self and Attitude Toward Environment in the‘Prediction of Achievement. In this thesis nineteen words appeared on a semantic differential test and on the Bill's Adjective Checklist, which significantly discriminated between hig h-ac hieving and low- achieving students of superior ability. For this checklist, to deter- mine the student's attitude toward self-as-learner, items were formed using the significant words which discriminated between high and low achievers on this previous study. Each item on the checklist is scored either positively or negatively depending upon its relation to high achievers (plus) or low achievers (minus) in the original study. The subtraction of these two total scores, one being a positive self con- cept and the other a negative self concept, yields a score called the attitude toward self-as-learner. 10 Five other items (8, 12, 20, 22, and 23) were added for indi- vidual analysis attempting to get rough measures of what each student felt of his own ability to be creative, to be a critical thinker, and to be open-minded. The creativity score was obtained from subtract- ing the score on item 12 ("I have lots of new ideas") from item 23 ("I never seem to have a new idea") . The Open-mindedness score was the number gotten by subtracting item 8 ("I like to hear other people's ideas") from item 22 ("I hate to admit someone else is right"). The 2 critical thinking score was the score on item 20 ("I can think cri- tically and sort good ideas from poor ones") . To each item on the attitude checklist the student reSponded on a four-point continuum from ”just like me" to "not like me." The scores on these above-mentioned five items were not included in the total concept of self-as-learner score. This instrument has not been cross-validated, but the original study was performed with this same sample. Cattell's High School Personaliquuestionnaire. This is a rela- tively short personality questionnaire which can be completed in one classroom period. The test is based on factor analytic studies and yields scores on fourteen personality dimensions. A. Schizothymia versus Cyclothymia Stiff, Aloof versus Warm, Sociable B . Mental Defect versus General Intelligence Dull versus Bright C. Dissatisfied Emotional Instability versus Ego Strength Emotional, Immature, Unstable versus Mature, Calm D . Phlegmatic Temperament versus Excitability Stodgy versus Unres trained E. Submissiveness versus Dominance Mild versus Aggressive 11 F. Desurgency versus Surgency Sober, serious versus Enthusiastic, Happy-go-lucky G. Lack of Rigid Internal Standards versus Super-Ego Strength Casual, Undependable versus Conscientious, Persistent H. Threctia versus Parmia Shy, Sensitive versus Adventurous, Thick-Skinned I. Harris versus Premsia Tough, Realistic versus Esthetically Sensitive J. Dynamic Simplicity versus Neurasthenic Self-Critical Tendency Liking Group Action versus Fastidiously Individualistic O. Confident Adequacy versus Guilt Proneness Confident versus Insecure Q2. Group Dependency versus Self-Sufficiency Group Dependent versus Individually Resourceful Q3. Poor Self-Sentiment Formation versus High Strength of Self- Sentiment Uncontrolled, Lax versus Controlled, Showing Will Power Q14. Low Ergic Tension versus High Ergic Tension Relaxed C ompos ure versus Tense, Excitableness C. Achievement Measures. The achievement measures included the ACE Critical Thinking Test and parts of the California Achievement Test and the grade-point average. ACE Critical Thinkigg_T_e_s_. A measure of how well a student can think. through or reason out a problem. The students took the college level form (form G) of this test. I California Achievement Test. The students were given the reading and language parts of the California Achievement Test, Advanced Form AA, for grade levels 9 through 1h. The reading score is a measure of read- ing comprehension; the reading vocabulary subtest was not administered. The total language test score is composed of subtest scores in spelling and molanics of English grammr. 12 Grade Point Average. The GPA was determined by using the stu- dent's solid course grades only and such courses as physical educa- tion and shop were not included for the three years of Junior High School. D. Personal History Items. A large number of personal history items were collected by means of a questionnaire and an English Class Survey. The questionnaire used was developed by Elizabeth Drews. It is a copyrighted instrument entitled, Student Interest Survey II and was developed from the original Student Interest Survey used in Drews' study of grouping, which was a pilot study for the research project, "A Study of Non-intellectual Factors in Superior, Average, and Slow High School Students." USOE/E—Z. The interest survey items attempt- ing to tap creativity developed from a study of the literature of crea- tiVe adults and college students. The Surwy of Interests yielded relevant information on parents' occupation and level of education, the students' interests and values for future life, their occupational aspirations, expectations and hopes for further education, their or- dinal status in the family, their ratings of their own ability, what they feel their parents expect of them in school and in future life, and the way they see themselves in relationship to descriptiVe profiles. Social class status in this study was determined by rating the fathers' occupations by the Warner, Meeker, Eels Index of Status Char- acteristics. The students' own occupational aspirations were rated similarly. Frequency charts were tabulated on the various personal history items, and then the numbers were changed to percentages for descriptive purposes. 13 E. Sociometric measures. The sociometric measures in this study were on the first page of the English Class Survey given to these students. They were asked to list their first, second, and third choices of persons in their English class with whom they would like to do various things or in accord with the way they saw various members of the class participating. There were six questions in all, of which the second and fifth yielded the measure of social choices, and the first, third, fourth, and sixth yielded the measure of intellectual choices. The total number of times a given person's name was listed as first, second, or third choice on items 2 and 5 was his score on social choices, and the number of times his name was written in on items 1, 3, h, and 6 was his score on intellectual choices. The social choices were not differentiated any further, but each of the four items making up the intellectual choices were also treated separately. This was done because of the way the scale was eVolved. The two items getting at the social interaction in the group were (2) "What people in this class would you have most fun with on a picnic?", and (5) "What people would you like to go with from this class to a dance?" The items making up the intellectual choices were differentia- ted further as to four separate things: (1) Intellectual - "If your English class were to have groups working together on a project to be presented orally, whom would you choose to work with so that your pro- ject would be the best one?"; (3) Creativity - "When your English class is asked for original (new) ideas, who has the most good ideas?"; (h) Open-mindedness - "In a class discussion, who is most willing to listen to other people's ideas and from this to change their own ideas Q 11; if it appears the idea is wrong?"; and (6) Critical Thinking - "Who do you think is most likely to disagree (question, challenge) with what someone else has said? (Who is the skeptic?)". Statistics The first statistical procedure was changing the six scores on the various measures of originality to standard scores and sumaing them into a composite originality score. The composite score was then cor- related with the other variables for the entire sample, for boys and for girls, using Pearson Product Moment Correlations. This was the main body of the thesis. Two sub-studies were run using extremities of the sample. The first sub-study compared those above the median on originality but below the median on intelligence with those above the median on intel- ligence but below the median on originality by use of Fisher "_t_"-tests. The second sub-study was to compare these students who scored extremely high on originality with those who scored extremely low on originality. In this study the Mann-Whitney U Test was used because it estimates "t" quite well and was more appropriate to the data because many of the variables were ordinal rather than interval scales. All the statistics were run either on the ?Oh or the 7090 computer at the University of California, Berkeley. The five percent level of confidence was used as the level of significance throughout the study unless otherwise stated. Further Description of the Sflle The mean Stanford-Binet IQ for the entire sample was 133.146; for the girls it was 133.h8 and for the boys 133.113. In the group there 15 were 1; boys and 10 girls with IQ's below 120; however, these students were all achieving well in school and were reading at least two years in advance of their grade level, and as will be shown later, 8 of these 114 scored above the median composite originality score. The sample was administered the California Achievement Test, Ad- vanced Form AA, for grade levels 9 through 114. The battery includes tests in the areas of reading, language, and mathematics. Only the reading comprehension sub-test was administered under the reading sec- tion, and the entire sample had a mean of 143.146, giving a grade place- ment level of 13. The total language test composed of sub-test scores in spelling and mechanics of English and grammar was given, and the total sample had a mean of 83 .10, giving a grade placement level of 12.7. There were no sex discrepancies on the reading scores. The mean language score for girls of 85.63 gives them a grade placement of 13.1, and the mean of 78.10 for the boys gives them a grade placement level of 1.2.1; this is a significant difference. The mean score on the ACE Critical Thinking Test for the group was 33 .18. The mean score for college freshmen at Michigan State University on this test was 29 at the time this data was collected. These mea- sures of achievement showed the subjects for this study were achieving well above their grade level and in line with their superior ability. The sample does not fit into the usual definitions of giftedness, and they can best be described as being academically talented and of super- ior mental ability. Gifted groups most frequently use an IQ cut off score of 130. The grade point average for the sample is 3.143 on a h-point system. The girls excelled in terms of grades, with an average Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of IQs, Achievement Measures, and Personal and Social Variables, for the Males, Females and Total Sample. B o y 8 Variable Mean S.D. IQ (Stanford- 133 .143 10.714 Binet) California 143.11; 14.07 Reading California 78.10 8.81 language Critical 32 .02 6.21 Thinking Rokeach 158.21 18.814 Dogmatism Bokeach 92 .95 13.70 Rigidity Grade-Point— 3.21 0.14.14 Average Socioeconomic 3.19 1.55 Status Father's 13.38 3.80 Education Kathar'a 12.67 2 001.1 Education Occupational Aspiration 1.31 0.77 Rating Self Rating of Ability 2.69 0.h6 G irl 8 Mean S.D. 133.h8 12.0h h3.61 h.08 85.63 8.15 33.76 5.89 152.98 21.38 9h.29 13.3h 3.5h 0.hl 3.22 1.65 13.70 3.27 13.11 2.20 1.9h 0.66 2.65 0.50 16 T o t a 1 Mean S.D. 133.116 11.61 h3.h6 h.08 83.10 9.10 33.18 6.05 15h.7h 20.71 93.814 13.148 3.h3 0.15 3.21 1.61 13.59 3 .116 12.96 2.16 1.73 0.76 2.66 0.119 17 of 3.514 in contrast to the boys' average of 3.213 here, again, the difference is significant. Fa Environment The majority of the students studied listed their religious pref- erence as Protestant. Within the group only 14 did not list a relig- ious preference, 14 stated they were Catholic, 5 were Jewish and 112 were Protestant. Most of the group would be called assimilated Amer- ican. The social status of their families were rated on their fathers' occupations by the Warner, Meeker, Eels Index of Status Characteristics. This scale runs from professional occupations (l) to manual labor (7). In the group the lowest rating of social status (7) was not applicable. The group was divided fairly evenly with 55 percent of the sample in the top three categories and 145 percent in the lower three categories. Table 3 shows the distribution was similar for boys and girls. 0n the Cattell LBPQ the sample differed from the norm groups on several factors. The academically talented boys differed from the norm group on factors B, I, 0, and Q2. The higher score on B (general intel- ligence) was to be expected and was evident for both sexes. They were lower on factor I (harria versus premsia) , or were more tough and real- istic, as opposed to being esthetically sensitive. They were lower on Factor 0, which shows that they tend to be more confident and self-secure than the norm group. They were higher than the norm group on factor Q2, indicating that they tend to be more self-sufficient and resourceful as opposed to being socially group dependent. The girls scored higher than the norm group on factors B, C, and H. Therefore, as a group they tend to be higher on ego strength, are more ma- ture and calm, and are more adventurous as opposed to being shy and timid. Table 2 Frequency Distribution of Social Status According to Categories on the Index of Status Characteristics Social Status Categories 1 (Highest) Professional 2 Managerial 3 Sub Managerial and Small Independent Businessmen 14 Skilled Workers 5 Apprentice to Sldlled 6 (Lowest) Semi-S killed Table 3 Religious Preference Methodist Presbyterian C ongregational Lutheran baptist Episcopal Jewish Catholic Other Boys 6 12 hz (3M) (28%) (10%) (31%) ( 5%) (12%) Boys c-Howmwa-oos 1:" N 18 Girls 15 13 16 83 (18%) (23%) (16%) (19%) (11%) (13%) Frequency Distribution of Religious Preference Total 21 31 17 25 16 125 (17%) (25%) (13%) (23%) ( 9%) (13%) Table 14 Means and Standard Deviations for Norm Groups . and for the Present Sample on the Cattell PBPQ Factors-rt- B o y s G i r 1 s M. S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D. Factor Norm Group Present Sample Norm Group Present Sample A h.9 1.7 5.10 2.17 h.5 1.7 5.9h 1.h7 B 6.7 1.9 8.93 0.86 6.9 1.8 8.8h 1.0h c 5.h 1.9 6.21 1.85 5.2 1.9 u.22 1.67 D 5.0 1.7 h.76 1.h3 5.0 1.7 h.23 1.70 E 5.0 1.9 5.55 1.58 h.h 1.8 h.oh 1.67 F 5.h 1.7 5.86 1.93 5.6 1.6 6.18 1.62 c 6.0 1.8 6.05 1.u6 6.5 1.7 6.30 1.50 H h.7 2.1 5.60 2.12 h.h 1.9 5.72 1.97 I h.2 2.1 2.83 1.57 5.8 1.9 5.35 1.75 J 5.1 1.6 5.88 1.58 5.5 1.6 5.50 1.52 o 5.0 1.8 3.93 1.65 5.h 1.8 h.69 1.91 02 5.5 1.8 6.55 1.37 5.0 1.6 h.77 1.32 03 h.9 1.7 h.10 1.67 5.1 1.7 h.20 1.h3 0h h.5 1.7 h.07 1.71 h.9 1.5 h.60 1.55 * A description of these factors on the Cattell High School Personality Questionnaire can be found on page 10. 20 Summary The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships be- tween a composite originality score and a variety of achievement tests, personality traits, and personal history items. The sample consisted of 125 academically talented adolescents from the public schools of Lansing, Michigan. There were 1.42 boys and 83 girls in the group. They were tested at the end of the ninth grade and the beginning of the tenth grade. The average Stanford-Binet I.Q. for the group was 133.146. These students placed at grade level 13 on Reading Comprehension and were predominantly high achievers in grades with a 3.5 average for the girls and a 3.2 for the boys on a 14.0 system. The criterion of originality was a composite score derived from four measures: Guilford's Plot Titles test, Guilford's Consequences Test, a projective story of a fictional person the student would like to be, and a sociometric rating of creativity. The first three tests were rated by two raters and the rating procedures are in the appendix. The six scores were changed to standard scores and summated for the composite score. The composite score was related to personality measures including the Rokeach Dogmatism and Rigidity Scales, the Attitude Toward Self as Learner Checklist, and Cattell's High School Personality Questionnaire; to achievement measures including the MSU Critical Thinking test, the California Achievement Test and grade point average; and to a number of personal history items. Correlations were run for the entire sample for boys and for girls on all these variables. Two sub-studies were run to see the difference between those scoring extremely high and low on originality and between those high on originality but low on intelligence with those high on intelligence but low on originality. Chapter III Survey of Literature Studies of creativity are similar in that they take into account some novel thought, idea, or product, and may be concerned with what determines original re3ponses through an analytical or a synthetic approach. The analytical approach is commonly seen as viewing creativ- ity as a process, a thought process the individual goes through to pro- duce a novel reaponse. The synthetic approach begins with an original reSponse, such as eminence in a field as viewed by professional col- leagues, or by original reSponses to an experimental situation devised to tap creative reSponses. The synthetic approach is called the prod- uct approach to studying creativity. Product research usually involves a description of the creative person whereas process research involves a description of the problem solving method in reaching a novel res- ponse. The type of research design to be followed is frequently inher- ent in the author' 8 definition of creativity. Process Definitions Torrance (51) defines creative thinking as process when he says "I have chosen to define creative thinking as the process of sensing gaps or disturbing. missing elements; forming ideas or hypotheses con- cerning them; testing these hypotheses; and communicating the results, possibly modifying and retesting the hypotheses." Torrance feels that he has subsumed under his definition the major features of most defi- nitions of creativity. Unlike most researchers in this field, he has given a process definition and then proceeded to experiment in the field in a product method, measuring creativity by test responses. This 22 23 approach is more the current modus Operandi because it permits a more global approach to studying creativity and is not as restricted in terms of seeing creativity as a discreet or pure factor. The creative process is usually described as having four main steps: preparation, incubation, illumination, and revision. The prep- aration step is the defining of the problem, the reading, studying, and collection of relevant information and the forming of alternate hya potheses; the incubation period is when the mind is somewhat dormant but the testing of the hypotheses is going on unconsciously; the illu- mination period is when the answer, solution, or novel product emerges with a flash of insight; the revision period is when the response is evaluated, ramified and perfected. In the literature there is much agreement on the process but only limited research in actual experimen- tation to assess if it is correct and how it might be implemented, due to difficulties in measuring thought processes. Results on the process most frequently are gained through introspection. Rogers giVes another process type definition of creativity which stems from his thinking and research on client~centered therapy and it would allow him to pursue the study of creativity along the same lines as he has approached other behavioral principles. Rogers says, "My definition, then, of the creative process is that it is the emergence in action of a novel relational product, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual on the one hand, and the materials, events, people, or circumstances of his life on the other."(h2) The process definitions have inherent in them a global approach seeing creativity ability both as a general and as specific factors. 2h Product Definitions Product definitions see creativity as a more Specific ability or Specific abilities which can be measured by tests. Many types of tests have been or are now being designed to measure creative or original responses. These tests include measurement of clever, uncommon, or remote responses, samples of writing and their content, divergent or convergent thinking, flexibility, and ideational fluency, to cite but a few examples. GuiJford's product type definition of originality is at the Oppo- site extreme of the continuum when compared to Rogers' Open-ended def- inition, being completely operational and limited to a specific cri- terion of creative accomplishment. "Three definitions and corre3pond- ing methods of measuring originality were finally adopted and applied to specially constructed tests. The methods are based upon: (A) un- commonness of response; (B) the production of remote, unusual, or un- conventional associations; and (C) cleverness of reaponses ." (53) Drevdahl gives one of the most complex and lengthy operational or product definitions of creativity which involves the analysis of the entire behavior of the person. "Creativity is the capacity of persons to produce compositions, products, or ideas of any sort which are essen- tially'new or novel, and previously unknown to the producer. It can be imaginative activity, or thought synthesis, where the product is not a mere summation. It may involve the forming of new patterns and com- binations of information derived from past experience, and the trans- planting of old relations hips to new situations and may involve the gen- eration of new correlates. It must be purposeful or goal directed, not .mere idle fantasy - although, it need not have immediate practical 25 application or be a perfect and complete product. It may take the form of an artistic, literary, or scientific production or may be of a pro- cedural or methodological nature." (114) The most apparent thing in all these definitions is that they are each worded to fit a Specific experimental approach or approaches, and further, that the nature of the criterion to be used in determining creativity in the study is often inherent in the structure of the in- vestigator's definition of creativity. It is inherent in Guilford‘s definition. that he is going to use factor analysis because he is look- ing for the Specific factors contributing to creativity. Rogers' stat e- ment with its emphasis on environmental and individual features is di- rected toward observation of individual and group problem solving tech- niques. The multitude of ramifications in Drevdahl's and Torrance's definitions have inherent within them the multiplicity of their approaches in their studies to determine the characteristics of the creative person. The Criterion Problem In designing creativity research another problem which the experi- menter in the area meets is that of a choice of a criterion or criteria once he has defined the concept. The most frequent criticism leveled at studies of creativity is that the criteria are determined in a sub- jective manner. Even Guilford's factor analytic tests have no Specific answers but, rather, must be rated by the scorer. The types of criteria that have been used to judge creativity have been grouped and categorized in several ways. Johnson used a three-way division for the criteria of creative accomplis hment: (l) the criteria of eminence - in the pages of history, the eyes of one's peers, or by 26 by counts of productivity; (2) critical incidents; (3) and work samples - the laboratory or experimental criterion of creativity. (l7) Drevdahl breaks this down somewhat differently. "There have been three general approaches to the study of creativity: the historical-anecdotal approach, best illustrated by Kretschmer, the intrOSpective personal report approach, exemplified in Patrick's studies, and the test approach, used by Termsn and Roe."(114) Stein has develoPed the most elaborate system of categorizing creativity criteria. He used six groups: (1) by the definition group; (2) the statistical or test criterion group; (3) the qualified or ex- pert judgment criterion; (h) products group; (5) the ultimate criterion group; and (6) the individualized criterion group. (’47) A recent description of criteria used for studying creativity was synthesized by Crutchfield(32), who lists five methods. (1) Identify noteworthy creative products and study how they came into being. (2) Elicit and study creative performances under standard conditions of ob - servation. (3) Analyze creative capacity into its assumed components and how they interrelate. (h) Test particular hypotheses about details of the creative process. This is the approach of the experimental psy- chologist. (5) The newest approach is the simulation of creative pro- cesses on the high speed electronic computer. This is to design com- puter programs which will as closely as possible simulate the behavior of people when they are actually engaged in creative problem solving and thinking, and then to gain insight into the underlying processes. Crutchfield finds each approach has merit and that they all tend to sup- plement one another. 27 For quite a time the test products or factor analytic approach was being used the most extensively. Currently, as is implicit in Crutch— field's grouping, a multiple criteria approach is being used in the large and extensive creativity projects. Definition of Originality in This Product Stag}: Originality in this study will be defined as the ability to pro- duce re3ponses which are clever, remote, or uncommon in contrast to the given population and to be seen as original by one's peers. The clev- erness, remoteness, or uncommonness will be subjectively rated by two persons after close definition of the categories. Guilford's tests of plot titles and consequences will be used, plus determining Similar ratings on a projective story of a fictional person whom the subject would like to be. Along with these product scores will be a rating of eminence by peers. Since Guilford's ideas will be used in this thesis, his research will now be discussed. Guilford's Research In l952, Guilford devised a battery of tests covering eight abil- ities hypothesized as being important in creative thinking as performed particularly by scientists, engineers, and inventors. These were ad- ministered to 1410 air cadets and student officers. By use of factor analysis nine previously identified factors were found: verbal compre- hension, numerical facility, perceptual Speed, visualization, general reasoning, word fluency, associational fluency, ideational fluency, and a factor combining Thurstone's closure I and II. "Five new factors were identified: (1) originality, a bipolar factor with ability to produce uncommon, clever, or remote responses on the positive side; (2) redefinition, 28 ability to shift the function of objects and use them in a new way; (3) adaptive flexibility, ability to change set to meet new require- ments imposed by changing problems; ()4) Spontaneous flexibility, ability to change set in a situation in which the direction of set change is unrestricted; (5) sensitivity to problems, ability to rec- ognize practical problems ." (22) In 1959, another study was published by Guilford in which he re- peated his factor analytic study across the domains of reasoning, crea- tivity, and evaluation. The factors restudied from the creativity in- vestigation were: sensitivity to problems, associational fluency, originality, and redefinition. As was mentioned before, Guilford scored the tests hypothesized to measure originality in three ways: for cleverness, for uncommonness or unconventionality of reSponse, or for remoteness of association. It was suspected that originality might be three factors instead of one, and this is why it was investigated again. He concluded that, "It was expected that this factor might be replaced by two or three factors if given the chance. Such apparently is not the wee. Thus it seems that all three properties should be included in the definition of the factor." (29) In‘both studies, the Plot Titles (cleverness score), Consequences (remoteness score), and the Unusual Uses Tests were found to have sig- nificant loadings. In the 1952 study the highest loading was on the Plot Titles Test. In the 1959 study the highest originality loading was on the Cartoons Test (not used in the 1952 study), and Plot Titles was secom. Guilford is currently using his originality tests on a group of ninth graders but the results have not yet been published. 29 Piers, Daniels, and Quackenbush used seven of Guilford's tests loaded on originality and ideational fluency with 1114 seventh and eighth grade students of above average intelligence and achievement. They found comparable reliabilities with Guilford's work with Air Force ca- dets and significant relationships with teachers’ ratings of creativity. They concluded, “It would seem, therefore, that the tests, even in their present experimental form, are appr0priate for research with bright junior high school students.”(37) Studies Using Guilford‘s Tests Drevdahl studied a group of graduate and undergraduate science and arts students at the University of Nebraska. They were each rated on creativity on a seven-point scale by two faculty members who were in close contact with them. On the basis of this, they were divided into creative and non-creative groups. Further subgrouping was done by dividing science and arts students. The subjects were given Cattell's 16 P.F. Test (personality), Thurstone's P.H.A. Test (intelligence), and nine of Guilford's tests. ”The creative group scored significantly higher than the noncreative group on the factor of originality, and al- though the difference betmen the groups on the factors of word fluency and adaptive flexibility were not significant at the .05 level, there appears to be a low, although significant relationship between creativity and higher scores on these two factors. The science group scored sig- nificantly higher than did the arts group on the factor redefinition, but there were no other significant differences between the arts and science groups. on Guilford's tests." (15) This study used a small sample (I! at), and the author felt that the original data may be minimal esti- mates of true differences . 30 In 1955 Barron published a study on "The DiSposition Toward Creativity.” Using 100 USAF captains as subjects, the research was aimed at identifying individuals who perform in a relatively more or relatively less original way. "Originality was defined in terms of uncommonness of reaponse to eight tests which could be scored objec- tively or rated reliably. To be called original, a response had to be uncommon in the sautple under study, and at the same time be adequate to the realistic demands of the problem situation. For the most part, the eight tests proved to be significantly correlated with one another and with an over-all staff rating of originality based on observation of the subjects through three days of social interaction." (3) In this study Barron used three of Guilford's tests of originality, the Unusual Uses Test, the Consequences Test, and the Plot Titles Test. Inter-correlations between the three tests ranged from .36 to .146, which were higher than inter-correlations found between any other originality measures employed. The composite test score of originality correlated .55 with the ratings on originality. The individual originality scores correlated from .07 to .16 with the ratings. In 1957, Barron reported a similar study, " Originality in Relation to Personality and Intellect." He again used 100 USAF captains as sub- jects and the same eight originality measures. "A composite score on the test variable originality was derived from this test battery, and psychological descriptions of high-scoring subjects were compared with descriptions of low-scoring subjects . The contrasting pictures which thus emerged seemed to indicate considerable validity in the originality composite, but they also raised some question concerning the way in 31 which verbal intelligence alone might have determined some of the ob- served differences ." (h) The relations hip of creativity and intelligence will be discussed below. Getzels and Jackson have studied the highly intelligent versus the highly creative adolescent. Creativity was determined by a composite score on five creativity measures taken or adapted from Guilford and Cattell or constructed especially for the study. These were tests of word association, uses for things, hidden shapes, fables, and make-up problems. They found these measures sufficiently useful to form two experimental groups (the highly creative and the highly intelligent). The five measures of creativity correlated with one another from .159 to .1420 for the boys and from .153 to .h88 for the girls. The high creative group was composed cf subjects scoring above the twentieth per- centile on creativity measures, but below the top 20% on IQ. The high intelligence group was in the tap 20% on IQ measures but below the top 20% on creativity measures . i The general impression gained from these studies is that Guilford's test measures of originality have been found to differentiate original from non-original groups with some degree of validity in relationship to the outside criterion of ratings. And further, that the separate tests themselves have sufficient inter-correlation to warrant the use of a composite test score of originality for sounder predictions of char- acteristics of the creative individual. Use of Sociometric Data as a Measure of Originality The most current research using sociometric devices as measures of originality with adolescents is to be found in the work of Paul Torrance. 32 Torrance gave a group of 1459 high school students a series of socio- metric or peer nominations aimed at tapping five different dimensions of creative thinking ability. "The questions and the hypothesized dimensions are as follows: (1) Who in your class comes up with the most ideas? (Fluency) (2) Who has the most original or unusual ideas? (Originality) (3) If the situation changed or if a solution to a prob- lem wouldn‘t work, who in your class would be the first to find a new way of meeting the problem? (Flexibility) (h) Who in your class does the most inventing and developing new ideas, gadgets, and such? (In— ventiveness) (5) Who in your class is best at thinking of all the de- tails involved in working out a new idea and thinking of all the con- sequences? (Elaboration) " "Scores were available only for Fluency, Flexibility, and Inventiveness. Raw scores were correlated with the frequency counts of nominations. Rather consistently the results for the eighth, ninth, and tenth grades were significant." (51) "Although the coefficients of correlation are statistically significant but not very high (around .21; for the total group of 1459 subjects), consider- ing the nature of the data, the results are encouraging.“ No sex dif- ferences were reported on these high school students, but Torrance did comment on another study with elementary school children using socio- metric ratings to get at creativity, that he found the most creative boys had a far greater impact on their classmates than did the most creative girls and the most creative boys were noted for their wild ideas. Another study using teacher ratings and sociometric data was done by Rivlin, who had teachers rate 126 tenth and eleventh grade students 33 on the creativity dimension and compared the creative and the non- creative as to sociability, self-attitudes, and background. "The re- sults indicated that the student selected as creative emerged as a rather sociable individual evaluating himself as more confident in his relations hips with peOple, more popular and creative as viewed by his peers than his non-creative counterpart." (141) She concluded that with high school students the creative ones seem to be socially confident and come from homes of higher educational background. The aSpect of sociability is unaccounted for in many studies, but does not jell with the personality attributes found descriptive of creative adolescents by experimenters such as Cattell and Getzels. In essence, sociometric ratings for adolescents in response to questions as used above by Torrance are similar to peer ratings among professional groups of men or women. The former are judgments made by adolescents on their peers based on class and known out of class behavior. The latter ratings are considered more valid because the judgments are formed on what a professional peer knows about a col- league ' s productivity. Poor ratings in adolescence on judgments of creativity as well as teacher ratings of adolescents on creativity are at this time dif- ficult to evaluate, but have not been found to be very valid. More research needs to be done to determine if more refined socio- metric devices can produce valid originality measures among adolescents and teachers of adolescents. Uses of Projective Devices as Measures of Originality Research using verbal fantasy material rated for originality is negligible other than for judgments of literary creativeness and for r___i—.. such things as Guilford's tests where verbal reaponses are all short answer products. A good deal of research has been done judging crea- tivity by the Rorshach and TAT but these give a restricted stimulus set to any response. The use of stimulus-free and less restricted story- telling products have been used relatively little in research on crea- tivity. One measure in Getzels and Jackson's study was McClelland's need: achievement measure. The McClelland instrument consists of six pic- tures to which the students reaponded by writing short stories. Get- zels and Jackson first scored the stories for the presence or absence of achievement and then analyzed them as total stories of verbal fan- tasy content. They found, "The high creative adolescents were signif- icantly higher than the high IQ adolescents in stimulus-free themes, unexpected endings, humor, inconguities, and playfulness, and showed a marked tendency toward more violence in their stories ." (19) To check the validity of this measure they sorted “blind" h? protocols written by the previously identified creative and non-creative groups and had only seven mispla cements . “On the basis of these findings, Getzels and Jackson have sugges- ted that an essential difference between the two groups is the creative adolescents' ability to produce new forms and to risk joining together elements usually seen as independent and dissimilar. They also sug- gested that the creative adolescent seems to enjoy the risk and uncer- tainty of the unknown. The high IQ adolescent prefers the anxieties and delights of 'safety' to the anxieties and delights of growth. These differences are reflected in the occupational choices of the two groups. 35 Sixty-two percent of the creatives chose unconventional occupations, such as adventurer, inventor, writer, and the like. Only 16 percent of the highly intelligent subjects chose such occupations; 81; percent of them chose 'conventional' occupations, such as doctor, lawyer, en- gineer." (51) Since the originality scores in this study are to be re- lated to IQ and personality measures, relevant research will now be dis- cussed under these headings. Relations hip of Intelligence and Creativity Drevdahl found that a creative group scored significantly higher than a non-creative group on the factor of verbal meaning on Thurstone's Primary Mental Abilities Test. No other significant differences were found between the groups on intelligence measures. "Also of interest is the finding that, for the most part, the creative artist possesses the same intellectual characteristics as the creative scientist." (1h) Barron, as mentioned earlier, raised the question that verbal in- telligence might well have influenced some of the observed differences in his study between original and non-original Air Force captains. "Verbal intelligence (Concept Mastery Test) was therefore partizlled out from the correlations between the originality composite and other test performances and ratings." (1;) The correlation between the Concept Mastery Test and the originality composite was .33 and was significant at the .01 level of confidence. In a further study, reported in the same article, Barron studied 31:3 officers to investigate the characteristics of the extreme groups in intelligence and originality. "When one compares the self-descrip- tions (adjective checklists) with the staff descriptions of subjects 36 who are both original and intelligent, it appears that intelligence rep- resents the Operation of the reality principle in behavior, and is res- ponsible for such characteristics as the appropriate delay of impulse- expression and the effective organization of instinctual energy for the attainment of goals in the world as it is."(h) If intelligence does act as a reality principle in creativity, then there is some doubt cast on the effect of partialling it out in research studies, or in not taking the two factors into consideration in any methods of teaching geared toward enhancing creative accomplishment. The highly intelligent and creative individual may well be the greater source of talent to our nation than the highly original person with relatively low intelligence who has difficulty containing his impulsivity. Getzels and Jackson found correlations ranging from .0 to .56 be- tween their creativity measures and IQ. Their project was devised to seek differences between highly creative and highly intelligent groups of adolescents. The high creativity group were 26 subjects (15 boys, 11 girls) in the tOp 20 percent in IQ (mean 150) , but below the tOp 20 percent on the creativity measures. "Deepite the similarity in IQ be- tween the highly creative and the school pOpulation, and the 23 point difference in mean IQ between the high creatives and high IQ's, the achievement scores of the two experimental groups were equally superior to the achievement scores of the school population as a whole.“ (18) This finding with adolescents is in conflict with the finding of Barron with Air Force captains. If intelligence is the reality principle in creative accomplishment, as Barron suggests, how then does the high creative group achieve at the same level in so holastic achievement. A 37 criticism, however, at this point is that Getzels and Jackson did not check for the correlation with grade-point averages. Another possible solution is that past a certain level of ability or intelligence such as in these restricted samples, correlations between IQ and creativity scores are negligible, whereas they would not be in the normal population. Meer and Stein performed a study with 6).; research chemists in a large industrial organization to investigate relationships between in- telligence and creativity scores. Supervisors' ratings of creativity and scores on the WAIS and MAT were obtained on each subject. "The consolidated results revealed a significant relation between intelli- gence and creativity. However, further analysis showed that when edu- cation was held constant the relations hip no longer held true for sub- jects with Ph.D. degrees. It was therefore hypothesized that where equal Opportunity is available, higher IQ scores beyond a certain point, (approximately 95th percentile) have relatively little significance for creative work as compared to personality and social factors." (33) These studies all report significant relationships between intel- ligence and creativity. Within the upper limits of intelligence it would seem there is less significance (Moor and Stein). Within a gifted adolescent papulation in a public high school setting it appears achieve- ment can be equally superior when one is either highly creative or highly intelligent (Getzels and Jackson). With an above average adult group (military officers) the relationship apparently acts as a reality principle in behavior (Barron). With college students both creative science majors and creative arts majors were found to be equally intel- ligent, and both were found to be higher scorers on verbal meaning than 38 non-creative college students (Drevdahl) . There is certainly a need for more evidence in the relationship to intelligence, personality, and achievement characteristics. Sex differences went unaccounted for in all these studies, and no other studies were found in which boys and girls were studied separately on this variable. Frank Barron (32) recently summarized the research on the rela- tionship between IQ and creativity in this way. "A generalization which I would suggest, based not only on my own studies and those of my colleagues at the Institute, but upon a number of other researchers during the past three years at the University of Minnesota, the Univer- sity of Chicago, and the National Merit Scholarship Corporation is this: Over the total range of intelligence and creativity, a low positive correlation, probably in the neighborhood of .140 obtains; beyond an IQ of about 120, however, measured intelligence is a negligible factor in creativity, and the motivational and stylistic variables upon which our own research has laid such stress are the major determiners of creativity." Creativity and Personality Guilford's research on creativity thus far has been most oriented towards the reliability of his measures and is only a segment of his broader topic on the structure of intellect. He has done only limited research on relating the originality variables to personality traits. By the use of self-inventory scores he has found some relationships between personality and originality, fluency, and flexibility factors. " From the results we may conclude that individuals who do well in tests of associational fluency tend to have a stronger need for adventure and they are more tolerant of ambiguity." -- "Individuals who are high on 39 scores for ideational fluency are inclined to be more impulsive, more ascendant, and more confident, and to have a stronger appreciation of creativity.“ -- "Those who score higher on tests of expressional fluency are inclined to be more impulsive, to appreciate aesthetic expression, and to like reflective thinking." -- "Measures of originality show re- lationships to a number of nonaptitude traits, but none very strong, so far as our results go. The original person tends to be more con- fident and tolerant of ambiguity and to like reflective and divergent thinking and aesthetic expression. The unoriginal person is inclined to be more meticulous and to feel a need for discipline. There is no indication that the original person is necessarily less inclined to- wards cultural conformity, which includes moral a8pects. The hypoth- esis that originality rests upon an attitude of unconventionality is not supported." (1) The personality measure to be used in this study is the Cattell High School Personality Questionnaire (I-BPQ) . This is the high school form of Cattell's l6 Personality Factor Test (16 P.F.) . Studies which have used Cattell's instruments are, therefore, of more concern and bear more direct relation to this survey. A description of the person- ality factors measured by the Cattell H.S .P.Q. are on page 10. Drevdahl, using the 16 P.F. Test, found that at a college level a creative group scored higher than a non-creative group on the factors of radicalism versus conservatism, self-sufficiency versus lack of resolution, and lower on the factors of cyclothymia versus schizo- thymia, and surgency versus desurgency. He felt that these might be expressions of minimal estimates of differences as the entire sample 140 was used by splitting them into halves. In his summary he makes the following statements: "(1) Creative persons in this group appear to be superior to non-creative persons in their verbal facility, fluency, flexibility, and in their originality; (2) Creative persons in this group appear to be considerably more withdrawn and quiescent than non- creative persons; Creative artists (liberal arts majors) were somewhat more radical and self-sufficient than creative scientists (science majors) or non-creative persons in either the sciences or the arts; (3) Apart from its classification as creative or non-creative, the art group was more sensitive emotionally, more Bohemian; (h) Individuality or non-conformity appear to be desirable for creativity." (1h) Drevdahl and Cattell published a study, "Personality and Creativity in Artists and Writers," in 1958. The subjects were selected by their activeness and productiveness in their reSpective field by committees of university art faculties, librarians, and editors. Of those contac- ted, 153 subjects completed and returned the test materials (16 P.F. Test). In comparison to the normal population (standardization group), the creative artists and writers were more intelligent, emotionally mature (ego strength), dominant, adventurous, emotionally sensitive, Bohemian, radical, self-sufficient, and of a higher ergic tension level. They were also less cyclothymic, surgent and subject to group standards and control. This group of writers and artists was similar to a crea- tive scientist papulation reported in another study in 10 of the 16 factors measured by the 16 P.F. Test.(15) A study was performed by Cattell and Drevdahl in 1955, and their purpose was to compare personality profiles on the 16 P.F. Test of hl eminent researchers, eminent teachers and administrators in comparison with the general papulation. These outstanding professional groups differed from the general population at beyond the .01 level in the personality factors referred to as general intelligence, ego strength or stability, dominance, desurgency, lack of group super-ego standards, adventurousness, sensitive emotionality, lack of paranoid trends, lack of free-floating anxiety, and compulsive superego (or will control). Except for administrators, they are at the same significantly higher level in radicalism and self-sufficiency. Administrators alone differ at the .01 level in showing lower somatic anxiety. (10) "Researchers, relative to teachers and administrators, are at the .01 level of certainty more schizothyme, self-sufficient, emotionally unstable, Bohemianly unconcerned, and radical. They are also signifi- cantly, but less uniformly, more dominant, paranoid, withdrawn schizo- thyme and lower on compulsive super-ego (will control) ."(10) Within the literature surveyed, Cattell's paper and pencil per- sonality test, which measures 16 isolated personality factors. as estab- lished by factor analysis, is unique in its contribution to the study of creativity in relations hip to personality. Between Cattell and Drevdahl, they have studied these variables in relation to different age groups and with different types of creative people. Further break- downs within these professional occupations are now being studied and will soon be published. Probably the most interesting aspect of these studies is the consistency of some factors in the various creative Groups. Cattell hopes to ultimately be able to select and encourage creative persons in certain directions by means of personality profiles. hZ The personality factors which seem to be found throughout these. studies to define the creative person are: intelligence, ego strength, dominance, adventurousness, emotional sensitivity, Bohemianism, rad- icalness, self-sufficiency, and high ergic tension. On the negative side they seem to be less cyclothymic, surgent and subject to group standards and control. .As Cattell points out, these are not the usual characteristics of the "pleasant person." If these are the attributes of the truly creative and original contributor to society's welfare, education and.psychology‘s emphasis on adjustment and society‘s demand for conformity are in need of revampment. Further research.needs to be done on how these creative people see themselves and how others see them.to determine how much these characteristics are covert or overt behavior. .As in most research on creativity, sex differences were neglected. Creativity research has been.almost exclusively performed with.male subjects. Reid, King and Wickmore (39) studied 2h creative versus 2h non- creative seventh grade students selected by sociometric ratings by peers on who had good imaginations. They found creative children to be less anxious, more cyclothymic than schizothymic, with no evidence that creative children were more desurgent. These results disagree with Cattell's findings, but the adequacy of the criterion used is questioned. This study did separate boys and girls, but there was no apparent sex differences. Getzels and Jackson found somewhat similar differences in their study of highly creative versus highly intelligent adolescents by use 143 of the Outstanding Traits Test. "The instrument contained descriptions of 13 children, each of the 13 exemplifying some desirable personal quality or trait. The subjects ranked each description in three ways: (1) on the degree to which they would like to be like them; (2) on the degree to which they believed teachers would like them; (3) on the de- gree to which they believed people with these various qualities would succeed in adult life. The high IQ's ranked the qualities in which they would like to be outstanding in the following order: (1) character, (2) emotional stability, (3) goal-directedness, (h) creativity, (5) wide range of interests, (6) high marks, (7) IQ, (8) sense of humor. The high creatives ranked the qualities in the following order: (1) emo- tional stability, (2) sense of humor, (3) character, (h.5) wide range of interests, (h.5) goal-directedness, (6) creativity, (7) high marks, ( 8) IQ. Most noteworthy is the creativity group giving sense of humor such a high ranldng."(l8) The rankings also offer some evidence in a difference in value structure when comparing the adolescent and the adult mind. Getzels and Jackson used small samples. There was an N of 26 in the high creative group and an N of 28 in the high intelligence group. The groups were of mixed sexes but sex differences were not re- ported. An even more noteworthy finding of Getzels and Jackson's using the Outstanding Traits Test was that the high IQ adolescent rates and wants the qualities he believes make for adult success and the qualities that are similar to those he believes his teachers like. The high creative adolescent favors personal qualities having no relations hip to those he believes mice for adult success and are in some ways the hh reverse of those he believes his teachers favor. This finding is somewhat consistent with Cattell's work in that the creative person does not really desire to be the pleasant person or to live up to others' expectations of his behavior. If we can judge from.these studies, the creative adolescent seeks individuality and non-conform- ity, is emotionally sensitive, and somehow feels he can fight group standards and controls. Barron (2) has done research on the personality dimension of com- plexity-simplicity. In.a study of this bipolar factor in.perceptual preferences (preference for perceiving and dealing with complexity versus preference for perceiving and dealing with simplicity) he found when'both.preferences were present at the same time, there were posi- tive significant correlations with.ratings on originality, good taste, artistic expression, non-conformity, independence of judgment, expres- sion of impulse, verbal fluency and negatively to rigidity. In com- parison with.personality attributes of creative persons in.Drevdahl's and.0attell's research, it would seem that complexity certainly fits as another characteristic and explains in part the apparent paradoxes seen in these individuals. Barron investigated originality more Specifically in his 1955 publication. This study arose out of his previously mentioned research on independence of judgment and of the preference for complexity as opposed to simplicity. "In this study with lOO.Air’Force captains, originality was found to be correlated significantly with independence of judgment, to personal complexity, and to the preference for complexity in phenomena, to self-assertion and dominance, and finally to the hS rejection of suppression as a mechanism for the control of impulse."(3) In his 1957 study when Barron partialled out intelligence (Con- cept Mastery Test) from his originality composite score, the signifi- cant relationships which remained were: (1) disposition toward inte- gration of diverse stimuli; (2) energy, fluent output, involvement; (3) personal dominance and self-assertion; (h) responsiveness to impuse and emotion; (5) expressed femininity of interests 3 (6) general effec- tiveness of performance. (14) "In a larger sample, consisting of 31:3 officers, the self-des- criptions of subjects relatively high on originality but relatively low on intelligence were compared with self-des criptions of officers low on originality but high on intelligence. The former group charac— terized themselves by adjectives which suggested undercontrol of im- pulse, while the latter group described themselves as unusually well controlled."(h) The original group used the adjectives: affected, aggressive, demanding, dependent, dominant, forceful, impatient, in- itiative, outSpoken, sarcastic, strong, suggestible. The high intel- ligence group checked: mild, Optimistic, pleasant, quiet, unselfish. The adjectives checked for the creative group in a previous study with- out intelligence partialled out are far more in line with the usual research (clever, imaginative, determined, initiative, resourceful, reflective, energetic, etc.) . The discrepancy here is outstanding and may be partially accounted for by the selection of the sample. At present one of the most important creativity projects is being carried on by the Institute for Personality and Assessment Research at the University of California, Berkeley, under the direction of 146 Donald W. MacKinnon; to date this research is largely unpublished. Some of MacKinnon's, Gough's, and Helson's findings on personality and creativity relationships were reported and later published from a conference at Lake Ta hoe in 1961. MacKinnon (32) studied a group of 12).; eminent architects and concluded, "But if I were to summarize what is most generally charac- teristic of the creative architect as we have seen him, it is his high level of effective intelligence, his openness to experience, his free- dom from petty restraints and impoverishing inhibitions, his aesthetic sensitivity, his cognitive flexibility, his independence in thought and action, his high level of energy, his unquestioning commitment to creative endeavor, and his unceasing striving for creative solutions to the ever more difficult architectural problems which he constantly sets for himself." Helson (32) studied M4 creative female mathematicians, and this sample included virtually all of the productive women in this field in the United States and Canada, She found that, "Personal history find- ings certainly suggest that the creative woman mathematician as a child tended to learn and adopt the attitudes and expectations of the male professional in our society. The most creative woman mathematicians tended to be only children or to come from families of girls, had home backgrounds higher in education and probably occupational status and had fathers who were professional men, most commonly engineers, phy- sicians, or teachers." Gough (32) studied 145 creative research scientists and found: "(1) The research scientist is an intellectually able person, both in is general and within his field of technical Specialization. (2) His values are primarily theoretical and aesthetic, and one would expect his work to reflect this orientation. (3) He is psychiatrically stable, and with respect to interpersonal behavior is an effective individual. ()4) His achievement drives are strong, particularly along lines of independent, autonomous effort. (5) He has an intraceptive, cogni- tively open, empathic mode of sensing and perceiving others ." Cough studied 16 research scientists (physicists, mathematicians, and engineers) with The Research Scientists Q-Sort Deck (RSQD), which was composed of 56 short assertions, each referring to an sepect of scientific research or to modes of approach to research. By factor analysis he identified eight components, and the one most related to the originality criterion was the component labeled "the zealot." Cough described this type as follows: "This man is indefatigable, ded- icated to research activity, he sees binself as a driving researcher, with exceptional mathematical skills and a lively sense of curiosity. He is seen by others as tolerant, serious—minded, and conscientious, but as not getting along easily with others and as not being able to 'fit in' readily with others." (32) Gough then did another study testing this finding with a differ- ent age group. He gave the RSQD to 300 engineering students and had each one described by observers on the Cough Adjective Checklist. The students identified as zealots were described as opportunistic, argu— mentative, excitable, hard-headed, ambitious, energetic, industrious, and self-confident. By checking out a finding on eminent adults with a different age 148 group, Gough has shown both similarity and difference in the same finding. Many of the same personality labels run through the various studies reviewed, but depending on the age level of the subjects, their degree of eminence, their field of endeavor, and the instruments used to measure such variables, many differences occur. The work being done at IPAR certainly demonstrates the complexity of working in the area of creativity and how little psychologists yet know of this phe- nomenon. No work in this field to date has done more than scratch the surface in comprehending the phenomenon of creativity, but the huge projects which have begun at research centers across the nation are al- ready demonstrating great promise. Summary Definitions of creativity can be divided into two groups: those dealing with process and those dealing with products. Process defi- nitions view creativity as a process of thinking and product definitions treat creativity as measurable by tests. All types of studies see cre- ativity as the production of a novel response, but the theoretical dif- ferences are whether to study only the responses, only the thinking which culminated in the responses, or both. Criteria of creative accomplishment are becoming more diversified as more is learned about this ability. The historical anecdotal ap- proach and intrOSpective personal reports were the first used criteria. More recently, peer and teacher ratings, by definition of productivity groups, smart judgment grOUps, and groups who score high on constructed originality and creativity tests groups have been used as criteria. The number and types of tests getting at creativity are expanding rapidly and may seem promising. ’49 Originality in this study is defined as the ability to produce re- sponses which are clever, remote, or uncommon in contrast to the given group and to be seen as original by one's peers. Two of Guilford's tests, Plot Titles scored for cleverness, Consequences scored for re- moteness, fictional story scored for cleverness, remoteness, and uncomr monness, and a sociometric rating for originality are used as measures of originality. In Guilford's factor analytic research on creativity he found the factor of originality was measured in three ways: clev- erness of response, remoteness of response, and uncommonness of response. His tests measuring originality have been found to be reliable in his own research and valid measures of originality in Barron's, Drevdahl's, and Getzels and Jackson's research. Using sociometric devices for measuring originality is debatable at present, but the research tends to show such measures and teacher ratings of creativity are not valid or show only slight positive rela- tionships with measures known to be more valid. The use of verbal fan- tasy material to unstructured or relatively unstructured stimuli is beginning to be used more in research as a valid and useful measure to get at creativity. The various measures of originality in this study were related to IQ, personality test scores, and personal history items, so that the literature was surveyed dealing with these relationships. It seems there is a low positive correlation between intelligence and creativity, but beyond an IQ of 120 intelligence seems to become a negligible fac- tor and motivation and personality seem to be the more important de- terminate. 50 The personality traits of the creative person differ in studies, yet all have a general theme. Cattell and Drevdahl generally find the creative person in all their studies to be intelligent, dominant, ad— venturous, sensitive, Bohemian, radical, self-sufficient, to have a high energy level and good ego strength, and less subject to group standards and controls. MacKinnon found his creative architects to have a high level of effective intelligence, an openness to experience, freedom from petty restraints and inhibitions, aesthetically sensitive, to have independence in thought and action, to be flexible, to have a high energy level, and to be committed to creative endeavor. Although different techniques of measurement were used in the above cited research, many similarities can be seen in descriptive terms. Most of the research sees the creative person as one who uses his intelligence effectively, is theoretically oriented and aesthet- ically sensitive, has a lot of energy and commitment to being creative, is flexible and not subject to the norms of society, and who is inde- pendent, self-sufficient, and emotionally stable. Chapter IV Results and Discussion The results of the thesis will follow; As each aspect of the study is covered there will first be a presentation of the data for the total sample, then for the males and females separately. The general form of presentation will be to discuss the results on the criterion of originality first and then to present the findings for each hypothesis as stated in the first chapter of the thesis. Fol- lowing the results will be a discussion section. Criterion of Originality The composite originality score was a combination of six scores: three scores for remoteness, uncommonness, and cleverness on the story of a fictional person the student would like to be, Guilford's Con- sequences and Plot Titles test scores, and the sociometric rating of creatiVity. .All of the measures were changed to standard scores and summated. It would have been much better if some weighting system could have been devised for the composite score, but no outside criter- ion of originality was available for the sample, so that this could notu be accomplished. The intercorrelations of the originality variables shown in Table 5 indicate that these variables are all essentially measuring differ- ent aSpects. There are significant correlations among the three scores on the.AéE test (remoteness, cleverness and uncommonness), but there are no significant relationships between the four main measures (the .AAE test, the Plot Titles test, the Consequences test, and the socio- .metudc creative choice). These were all previously used measures of 51 Table 5 AEIRemoteness Boys Girls Total AE Uncommonness Boys Girls Total AE Cleverness Boys Girls Total AE Total Boys Girls Total Plot Titles Cleverness Score 3078 Girls Total Consequences Remoteness Score Boys Girls Total Sociometric Boys Girls Total Tahilli 52 :Intercorrelations of Originality Measures For Combined and Separate Males and Females AE Uncom- 11101111888 .535** .537** .5h1** 125; Boys ' h2 Girls 33 .AE Clever- ness AE Total .677** .7h5** .729-31—26 .869** .863** .667** .66hrs .667%* Plot Titles -.025 .065 -,Qh3 .062 .018 “0069 .038 -.00h " 006).]. .093 .03h quences .130 .088 .098 -0027 .012 “0108 .189 .101 “.050 .036 .007 Composite Originality .600** .553** .560** .613%* .675** ,6h7rw .h75** .607** .557** .763** .800tt .778** .3h2* .h61** .h28** .390** .377** .379** .293 .h7o** .h18** 53 creativity, but none were validated in the present study because an outside criterion could not be obtained. It must also be noted that peer ratings of creativity by children may be yielding a different measure than peer ratings by eminent adults and could be confounded by sex, popularity, and less objectivity of the immature rater. It was hypothesized that the.AéE cleverness score would correlate positively with the Plot Titles score (scored on cleverness) and that the.AéE remoteness score would correlate positively with the Consequen- ces test (scored on remoteness). These results were expected because of the theoretical method of doing the subjective scoring of the A-E test, which provided in a different way measures of the same components of creativity as those defined by Guilford. In scoring the.AéE stories for the three factors of remoteness, cleverness, and uncommonness, it was found that remoteness and cleverness were unrelated, but remoteness and uncommonness and cleverness and uncommonness were significantly correlated for both boys and girls. As shown in Table 6, there were no significant sex differences. The tests on the differences between means on the various components were not significant between males and females and there was no signif- icant difference between their mean composite originality scores. Because there was no outside criterion with which the supposed measures of creativity might be correlated, their validity as measures of originality was necessarily assumed on the basis of validity in past research, and that raters would compare with raters in other studies. Of secondary support was the fact that the subjective ratings were very carefully'done. The correlations between rater judgments are presented in Table 70 Table 6 5h Means and Standard Deviations of Originality Measures for Boys, Girls, and Total Sample AE Remoteness AE Uncommonness AE Cleverness AE Total Plot Titles Consequences Sociometric Composite Total.N 125 Boys 12 Girls '83 B o y s Mean S.D. 30.95 10.112 31.h3 13.20 29.h0 13.33 91.79 27.10 82.86 h3.19 15h.29 73.89 h.17 5.67 299.h3 27.18 C i r l 3 Mean S.D. 27.71 12.7h 27.83 12.66 26.93 11.82 82.35 28.23 92.95 55.18 157.05 69.h6 h.2h 5.95 299.h5 31.38 T o t a 1 Mean S.D. 28.80 12.11 29.0h 12.96 27.76 12.10 85.52 28.21 89.56 51.69 156.12 70.99 b.22 5.86 299.hh 30.03 Table 7 Originality Rhesure AE Remoteness AE Uncommonness AE Cleverness Consequences Plot Titles 55 Reliability Between Two Raters on Ratings of Originality Measures Correlations Between 2 Raters .929 (rated together) .9h8 .996 .992 56 The hypotheses of this study will now be discussed in light of the results. The quantifiable relationships are expressed in Pearson Product Moment Correlations. In treating nonquantifiable data the more original students are defined as those scoring above the median com- posite originality score and the less original students as those scor- ing below the median composite originality score. When discussing either boys or girls separately, the sex group median was used rather than the median for the total group. Main mothesis The principal hypothesis in this study was that the consistently original or creative student could be identified. This hypothesis was not substantiated because of the lack of relationships between the var- ious components of the composite originality score. Because the main tenet was not proven, interpretation of the following results must of necessity be only tentative and seen as possible explanations or re- sults and indications for further research. Originality Versus Intelligence Hypothesis 1. It was hypothesized tint more original students score higher on intelligence tests than the less original students. In Table 8, the correlations between the various measures of originality and the Stanford-Binet IQs of the students, however, indicated no significant relationships. That is, within the relatively homogeneous group of bright students in the present study, there seemed to be no correlation between their ability to demonstrate original reaponses on the tests used for measurement of originality and their 103. This finding sug- gests that the measures of creativity and intelligence were not measuring 57 Table 8 Correlations Between each Originality Measure and StanfordéBinet 103 for Boys, Girls, AE Remoteness AE Uncommonness 4AE Cleverness AE Total Plot Titles Consequences Sociometric Choice Composite Total N Boys .075 .093 .210 .177 -.302 .128 -.022 .068 12 and the Total Sample Girls -.076 -.022 -.087 -.073 -.030 -.0h3 .12).: " 00,42 83 Total -.035 .015 .012 .003 -.100 .012 .080 -.012 125 58 the same type of abilities for the particular group studied. It does not suggest that intelligence and originality are unrelated in more heterogeneous papulations, but, rather, that with both boys and girls of superior ability, intelligence is not a factor in the ability to produce original responses. grimy Versus Achievement EUpothesis 2. It was hypothesized that more original students are more often high achievers, both on achievement test scores and grade point averages, than less original students. As indicated in Table 9, there was a decided sex difference in the results related to this hypo- thesis. For the boys, three of the four achievement measures (Califor- nia Language, ACE Critical Thinking and grade point average) were re- lated significantly to the composite originality scores. None of these four achievement measures was related to the composite original- ity scores for the girls. Because of the preportion of girls to boys in the sample, there were no significant results when the total group was combined except for grades. The relationships between the four variables included in the orig- inality composite and the achievement test scores and grade point aver- ages indicated that the boys' abilities to be original and to achieve both on tests and in school were correlated, whereas the same relation- ships were not demonstrated for the girls. The single exception for the girls was the significant relationship between the number of times they were chosen by their classmates as being creative (sociometric creative choice) and the achievement measures (ACE Critical Thinking , California Reading, and grade point average). From the correlations Table 9 I 0 tin E m E f 8 .Achievement Calif. Reading Boys 0137 Girls “oOhZ TOtal 0003 Calif. ‘Language Boys .328* Girls “0038 Total .017 ACE Grit. Thinking Boys 0103 Girls .023 Total .029 GPA Boys .026 Girls -.oh7 Tom]. ”0067 Total N’ 125 Boys h2 Girls 83 59 Correlations Between Achievement Variables and.Measures Uncom- monness AE .205 .OOh .065 .208 “0078 -.028 “0050 -0009 .077 ‘0038 “001‘2 Originality'Measures L m .3 a. g as $2 an o as a: a 0 Q g E-4 04 E-1 O 0" .07h .189 -003h .068 -0037 “.030 ”.1146 "’.05h “0002 .032 ’0108 ‘0011 0231 0339* “0172 .086 '00h8 '0068 ”.099 .098 .016 .00h -.07h .093 .180 .18h “.086 0218 .001 -.005 -.137 .032 0055 .036 “.107 0101 ohés** .276 -0123 ohé9** 0158 .031 -0002 -0101 0223* 0051 “.003 0107 * Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level of Originality for Boys, Girls, and Total Sample Socio- metric Choice .280 .2h2* .25h** .203 .108 .131 .291 .3h6** .325** .177 .385** .296** Compos- ite Score .268 .0h2 o07h 032h* “0016 .085 .302* .070 .1h2 .h01ae .l92* 60 for both boys and girls, it seemed that one factor influencing socio- metric choices of creative students was their ability to achieve good grades and to give evidence of an ability to think critically. In Table 10, the achievement test scores and grade point averages were significantly correlated with the Stanford-Binet 10s for the en- tire sample. With the exception of grade point averages, there were also significant correlations of these measures with the S-B IQs when the boys and girls were considered separately. Personality Versus Orig inality , Hypothesis 3. It was hypothesized that more original students have a personality profile on the Cattell EBPQ which is different from the profile of the less-original students, and that the profile is similar to those feund in previous studies for creative adults. On the Cattell HSPQ the only factor which correlated significantly with orig- inality for the whole sample was the H factor, threctia (adventurous, thick-skinned) versus parmia (threat-sensitive, shy). This factor cor- related significantly with the composite originality score (.252) and with the A-E uncommonness (.227), A-E cleverness (.2211), and total A-E (.233) scores. It must be noted here that more correlations could have been significant by chance than occurred in the data, which makes the following interpretation tentative . The students who score high on the H factor are described as being adventurous and thick-skinned versus the other extremity of the continu- um of students described as shy, timid, and threat-sensitive. These students are described as adventurous, liking to meet people, active, responsive, friendly, having emotional and.artistic interests, being carefree, as opposed to noticing danger signals, being impulsive and 61 Table 10 Correlations Between Stanford-Binet 10s and Achieve- ment Measures for Boys, Girls and Total Sample Achievement Measures Boys G irls Total Calif . Reading . 3 51-:- . 550% $879+)? Calif, Language .11. 78-x—r , 329*:9 . 3117;”. ACE Critical Thinking .312* .588-><~X- .1193-381- Grade-Point-Average .252 .160 .1789:- 'X' Significant at .05 level ‘76? Significant at .01 level 62 Table 11 Correlations Between Personality Factors on the Cattell I-BPQ and Measures of Originality for the Total Group Studied Measures of Originality {D I D) I é Im 34 (0 l0 I00 an 0 0) H a) Q10 O'HO O Cattell on 5 >m 3 +1.4 and Hhr-I 2‘ IBPQ* Eu 0 on o-p so o+>o 3 00 GO HQ) 0 H'r'l 05 010.21 0 Factors aid DE or: E-t cue-4 00' 8280 car-I A -.038 «091; .0113 -.038 .1211 -.092 .051; .019 B .088 .082 .088 .117 -.039 .038 .109 .118 .108 .058 .1115 .1110 -.051 -.Oh5 -.060 .011; -.012 -.065 -.089 -.077 .032 .123 .033 .ooh .031; «021; -.106 -.0h5 -.066 -.050 -.052 -.11h .008 .021 .109 .061 .076 .035 .126 .127 .09h -.012 -.028 .019 .018 -.098 .07h .021 .073 .227-2s'c .22heez- .233et—rc,081 .0311 Jug .2525” -.056 -.137 -.186 -.156 .071 .050 -.001 -.037 -.011 .082 .116 .083 .001 -.018 -.033 .Ohl .090 -.01h .036 .052 -.0h8 -.022 - .031 «031; c D E F G 11 I J 0 -.037 -.152 -.167 -.163 -.056 .022 -.097 -.1h9 02 03 -.051 .000 .109 .025. .0h9 -.001 .023 .036 Qh .018 -0022 ‘009h “.050 .03h .057 -.0h7 ‘0007 * Factors described on page 10 *1? Significant at 1% level 63 frivolous, and having an overt interest in the Opposite sex. In con- trast, "The Hsindividual reports himself to be intensely shy, slow, and impeded in expressing himself, disliking occupations with.personal con- tacts, prefering one or two close friends to crowds, avoiding large parties or open competition, fearful of new situations, somewhat Spite- ful and distrustful, but very considerate of other's sensitivities, and not feeling able to keep in contact with all that is going on around him." (EBPQ Manual, p. 32.) “For the girls, the only factor on the Cattell HSPQ which corre- lated significantly with originality measures was the H factor, threc- tia versus parmia, just as were the results for the whole sample. .Again, more correlations could have been significant by chance than 'were found. However, there was the difference that the H.factor cor- related significantly with the total.A-E score (.221) and with the com- posite originality score (.275), but, also, additionally with the crea- tive choice question on the sociometric survey (.230). This finding suggested that the students considered their female classmates who were overtly venturesome and competitive in the classroom setting as being the most creative, and indeed they were the girls who wrote the stories of fictional persons they would like to be in less of a stereo- typed manner. For the boys, those students considered most original by their classmates on the basis of ability to produce the most new ideas in class also scored high (.352) on factor D, phlegmatic temperament ver- sus excitability. The excitable students are described in the test manual as being demanding, impatient, attention-getting, excitable, 6h Table 12 Correlations Between.Personality Factors on the Cattell HSPQ and Measures of Originality for the Eighty-three Girls Studied Measures of Originality Cattell 4:3. 833’ é... H 8,2”? 851%: 85?. '5; 2 A ~.001 -.001 .017 .012 .098 -.079 .028 .018 B .082 .011 .010 .050 -.0u0 .059 .118 .077 c .080 -.0u9 .1u0 .076 -.008 -.018 -. h6 .032 D -.098 -.013 -.082 -.089 .023 .127 -.093 -.0u2 E -.127 -.116 -.10u -.158 .011 .028 -.108 -.132 F .1ua .092 .136 .166 .059 -.031 .093 .158 c .212 .098 .028 .1h5 -.001 -.129 .106 .101 H’ .153 .162 .192 .221% .177 -.0h8 .230* .275*% I .025 -.0h5 -.201 -.099 .155 -.077 .000 -.0us J -.090 .060 .060 .010 -.019 -.06h .005 -.015 0 .010 -.100 -.112 -.092 -.013 .067 -.100 -.088 02 -.038 -.091 .013 -.ou7 -.013 -.068 -.173 -.119 Qh .119 .137 -.073 .075 .056 .159 -.185 .082 + Description of factors on page 10 % Significant at 5% level of confidence as Significant at 1% level of confidence Table 13 Cattell ESPQ+ Factors A B O O a, H m C) '11 131 U £3 63 i3 + Factors described on page 10 65 Correlations Between Personality Factors on the Cattell HSPQ and Measures of Originality for the Fortyhtwo Boys Studied -0292 “0137 Uncom— monness I AB 0 O m H \u \n c> nr .071 -.ZSh -.020 -.062 -.188 .357* -.1h3 .083 -.197 -Jl6 .021 “.2112 Measures of Originality Clever- ness 3.3 .125 .2h7 .073 -J58 -.256 .098 -.108 .287 .058 .18h -.210 -.067 .lhl -.092 P1 .3 53:2 “.023 .267 Conse- quences "0126 I o C) C) U1 -.079 .129 -.195 .138 -.0h6 .173 .308* .068 -.08h .083 -.073 -.120 66 overactive, prone to jealousy, self-assertive, egotistical, distrac- tible and undependable. "This factor (D) is differentiated from the instability versus ego strength factor (0) by the more immediate tem- peramental quality of the excitability, by mind-wandering distracti- bility; by a quality of insecurity, and by an irrepressible, positive assertive emphasis in the emotionality." (HSPQ Manual, p. 28.) "The high D child reports that he is a restless sleeper, easily distracted from work by noise or intrinsic difficulty, is hurt and angry if not given important positions, or whenever he is restricted or punished, and so on. This factor has sometimes failed to appear with adults, but it shows as a really substantial dimension in children." (HSPQ Manual, p. 28.) Some of the descriptive elements of factor D create difficulty in comprehending why students would choose boys described in such a man- ner as being more creative. In reviewing the actual test questions, however, it becomes apparent that the most important descriptive ele- ments appearing are the general excitability expressed through asser- tiveness, and this is consistent with the traits of being talkative and competitive in a classroom, of not liking to be disturbed by noise when working, and of verbally disagreeing when things go wrong. Three other factors on the Cattell HSPQ also bore significant relationships with the originality measures for boys. These were fac- tor H, threctia versus parmia (timid, shy, threat-sensitive versus ven- turesome, thick-skinned), factor I, Harrie versus premsia (practical, tougheninded versus tender-minded, sensitive, protected), and factor 0, confident adequacy versus guilt proneness (secure, resilient, 67 confident versus discouraged, self-reproaching, worrying). For the boys the only originality measure with which factor H correlated significantly was the.A-E uncommonness score (.357), which suggests that the boys who could write the most uncommon stories were the more adventurous in personality. .Although factor H did not cor- relate significantly with the other personality measures which were significantly correlated for the girls, the correlations for the boys pointed toward the same trends. Factor I, harria versus premsia (practical, tough-minded versus tender-minded, sensitive, protected) correlated significantly with the Plot Titles test (-.352) and with the Consequences test (.308). This continuum is differentiated between the low I student who might be described as tough, realistic, self-reliant, and responsible as con- trasted with the student described as more esthetically sensitive, dependent, demanding, artistically fastidious, and having an imagina- tive inner life and conversation. That this factor correlated positively ‘with the Consequences test is difficult to comprehend, but in that the test requires the student to give as many alternative events as possible that could occur in a given situation, it may be tapping an ability which requires practical thinking as well as imagination. The negative correlation between factor I and the Plot Titles score showed that the more realistic, tough, self-reliant type of student who had fewer ar- tistic responses was less likely to be able to reapond in an esthet- ically sensitive way to writing clever and catchy titles to a story. Factor 0, confident adequacy versus guilt proneness, was the only personality factor significantly correlated with the composite score of 68 originality (-.322) for the boys. This finding indicates that the more creative boys tended to be confident, self-secure, and resilient in contrast to those who are described as timid, insecure, worrying, anxious, and depressed. In summary, the factor-analytically determined personality attri- butes of the Cattell HSPQ seemed to yield a better description of the boys in the study than of the girls. The most original girls were des~ cribed as being adventurous and thick-skinned. 0n the other hand, creative boys showed this quality of adventurousness, as well as being esthetically sensitive, excitable and unrestrained, secure, confident, and resilient. These results are similar, although not as extensively descriptive, as other studies using the Cattell 16 PF Test for adult males cited earlier. Originality'Versus Concept-of-Self-as-SchoolALearner Hypothesis h. It was hypothesized that more original students have a more positive self-concept of themselves as school learners than the less original students. The intercorrelations between the measures of the total Concept- of-Self-as-School-Learner score, the creativity, critical thinking, and open-mindedness questions included on the checklist and the total positive and negative Concept-ofeself-as-SchoolsLearner scores were all significantly related for the entire sample. Those students who had a high concept of themselves as school learners also checked them- selves high.on being creative, being open-minded, and being able to think critically. In relation to measures of originality, the concept Table 1h Creative Boys Girls Total Open Minded- ness Boys Girls Total Critical Thinking , Boys Girls Total Positive Self'Concept Boys Girls Total Negative Self Concept Boys ' Girls Total Self’Concept Boys Girls Total 69 Intercorrelations of.Attitude Checklist for Creative Minded- HESS Open- .h37** .08h ,17h% * Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level Think- ins Critical 0 N ‘3 00 0297** .289%% .096 .319%* .266** Boys, Girls, and Total Sample Positive Self Concept .2h3 .moa 0391** Negative Self Concept -.h88** "0105 -,228%% “0277 'OlSl “0195* .083 -0160 "' .090 ”0216 -,h32** -,365** .127 .211 .220* .hoaaa .326** .869** .906*% .902** -.671*X' '0759** -.722*% 70 of Originality for Boys, Girls, and Total Sample Table 15 a . a a a 3 as a a a Creative Boys -0168 .178 Girls .165 .06h Total .072 .107 OpenIMinded- ness Boys -.3h7* -.26l GiJfls .095 .Oh8 Tom 0031 ”0060 Critical Thinking Boys 0136 0268 Girls .1h2 .083 T0133]. 0135 0133 Positive Self Concept Boys ‘0172 .1140 Girls .lhh .060 Tom 0008 .0110 Negative Self Concept Boys 0181 -0058 Gir18 ”0151 .0142 Tom “MOM 0018 Self Concept _ Boys “0222 .136 Girls .171 .0h2 Total .026 .03h HESS Measures of Originality :2 a, m rfi 0 a :3 :2 *3 :3 O :7 O ,q.d $8: is me .188 .llh. .126 -.081 .070 -.0h5 0020 0089 “0001 0021 “.250 .200 .0116 .079 “00’49 .023 -.035 .02h “.131 01—18 .150 .053 .123 .010 -.009 .115 .Oh7 “0088 “0011.1 0003 .150 .1h9 -.ooh .030 .031 .028 ”0161 ”0038 0072 "' 00’40 “.0714. .0113 "' .076 “.0149 001-13 0015 -0012 “0031], 0129 0150 ‘0017 .060 .052 .005 * Significant at .05 level *fl- Significant at .01 level Conse- quences .0h2 “0071 -0032 .02h "' 0063 -.033 .009 “0203 -0136 .169 “0178 “00’48 “0073 .2h3* .131 .165 "’ 025,45? "' .106 $0010- metric Ch01ce C) cr .089 .075 .163 .010 .052 .293 .239* .25b** .121 .331*% .251*% .129 -0087 -0017 .026 ,3o3sa .212* Correlations between.Attitude Checklist Items and Measures .267 .103 .1h7 .062 .160 .123 .033 .015 .020 .031 .119 .090 71 of self-as-school-learner and the critical thinking self-attitude were positively related to their scores of creativity on the sociometric de- vice. This finding indicated that the more positive a student in the group felt about himself as a school learner and as a thinker, the more likely he was to express these things and to be seen in a similar way by his peers. The positive relationship was largely attributable to the girls, however, because the same findings were not apparent for the boys. It did appear that the degree to which a boy considered himself creative was related to his concept of himself as a school learner, although.not to his self-concept with regard to being Open-minded and to be able to think critically. In Table 16 there are two significant correlations which are dif- ficult to explain. For the girls there was a significant negative cor- relation (-.25h) between the Consequences test and self-concept scores on the attitude checklist, which seems to indicate that the lower the girls' attitudes toward themselves as school learners, the more able they were at postulating consequences to different events. Because the Consequences test scores correlated significantly with so few of the variables, no explanation for this finding was apparent. It may be related to the original difficulty in rating the responses to the Con- sequences test. There was also a significant negative relationship (-.3h7) between the boys' remoteness scores on the.A+E tests and their attitudes toward themselves on open-mindedness. Interpretations are presented in the discussion section. Wity Versus Dogmatism and Rigidity Hypothesis 5. It was hypothesized that more original students would Table 16 Measures of Originality AE Remoteness AE Uncommonness AE Cleverness AE Total Plot Titles Consequences Sociometric Choice Composite * Significant at .05 level Boys -.12h .036 -.202 -.129 .OSh -.093 .. .319)? ‘0237 72 Dogmatism Girls -.073 -.o7o -.035 -.O82 -.065 -.063 -.o71 -.121 Total -.070 -.020 -.078 -.O7S -.0h5 -.07h -.1h5 -.153 Boys -.063 -.Oh3 -.129 -.109 .005 .005 .07h -.053 Rigidity Girls -.1h8 -.o9o .023 -.103 -.052 -Jh1 -.077 -.155 Correlations between Measures of Originality and Rokeach Scales for Boys, Girls, and Total Sample Total 73 be less rigid and less dogmatic on the Rokeach.Sca1es than the less original students. The correlations between the measures of originality and the di- mentions of the Rokeach.Scale are shown in Table 17. Of these correla- tions, there was only one of significance - the negative relationship for boys between.dogmatism and the number of times seledted on the sociometric as a creative person in the classroom. The dogmatism and rigidity scales were significantly related for the boys (.35?) and for the girls (1133), indicating that within the group those who tended to be dogmatic also tended to be rigid. One apparent sex difference was that dogmatism correlated significantly 'with.grade point average for both boys and girls, but it had a negative relationship to grades for the boys (-.303) and a positive one for the girls (.277). Rigidity was negatively correlated to Stanford-Binet 103 for both boys and girls. ‘Qgiginality'Versus Personal History Items Hypothesis 6. It was hypothesized that more original students do not differ from less original students on socioeconomic status, parents' education, or other personal data items. For the entire group the data indicated that the students who were able to write the most original stories about a fictional person they would like to be were also those students who were aspiring to the highest level occupations. The total.A-E score was significant at the .01 level when correlated with the students' occupational level of as- piration. This was true whether the stories were being scored for re- moteness, uncommonness, or cleverness. 7h Table 1? Correlations between S-B IQs and.Achievement Measures and Rokeach Scales for Boys, Girls, and Total Sample Achievement Dogmatism Rigidity Measures Boys Girls Boys Girls StanfordéBinet IQ -.203 -.033 -.h50** -.35h** California Reading -.205 .005 -.051 -.215% Californifl Language '0271 .110 ”.168 ”.12).! ACE Critical Thinking -.226 -.023 -.100 -.251* Grade-Pointhverage -.303% .277% -.l98 .117 % Significant at .05 level *% Significant at .01 level 75 Table 18 Correlations between Measures of Originality and Personal History Items for Boys, Girls, and Total Sample Measures of Originality l U) l co I Personal 3 i 3 33 .4 3°; 52 33 6 3 3 8 .History' g g _ 8 § ,§ g _-S '853 2 3 3-5 3 g‘o 1mm 3mm $55 302 a3 SE 8% 825 Sfi Father's Occupation Boys .0118 “0066 -0260 -.lh2 0215.3 “00119 "0191!. “0103 Girls .110 .103 .071 .118 .125 .171 -.26h* .101 Total .090 .0h6 -.0h5 .035 .157 .097 -.2h2** .Ohl Father's Education Boys “0111 .217 .296 .209 “0096 .130 .039 017).} Girls -.083 -.089 -.O22 -.08h -.l75 ~.l7l +.318** -.O72 Tom]. “0096 .022 0100 .011}. “.1112 -0055 0217* 0011 Mother's Occupation Boys -.185 .186 .077 .057 -.129 .022 .086 -.0h5 Girls 0007 .055 “00,411 0000 9011i -0133 “01011 “0069 Total -.071 .09h -.003 .010 -.02h —.O73 -.096 -.O6O Mother's Education Boys -.l98 -.221 -.082 -.22h -.065 .h2l*% .062 -.030 Girls -.107 -.110 -.02h -.098 -.l79 -.183 .283** -.102 T0133]. ”0111-3 ”0157 -0053 ‘0150 “.137 0020 0215* '0081 Ordinal Status Boys “.069 .012 -0036 -0038 0011.5 “0179 “0273 -0181; GiI'b “.0113 .026 .100 .028 cm 0070 “0191]. .022 Total -.oh3 .029 .055 .015 .085 -.020 -.220* -.01.1 Occupational Aspiration Boys “0185 “.207 “0156 ‘02)49 0281 -0157 .228 “0973 Girls “01,414 -0130 “0269* -.236* “0002 -0060 ‘0155 “0203 Tom]. “0191* “01963? -.2h2**-.280** 0115 -0011], ”0011]. '01115 * Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level 76 .Another significant finding for the entire sample was that those students who were selected as being most creative by their peers on the sociometric survey were those whose fathers were in high-level positions and whose parents had high-level educations, and that they tended to be the firstéborn in their families. There was one significant relationship in the data for the boys. The boys who scored higher on the Consequences test had mothers with higher level educations. No explanation for this finding was apparent. There was a trend showing the relationship between occupational aspir- ation and scores on the.A-E test and between ordinal status and being chosen by peers as creative, but there were no others. The data for the girls were similar to those for the entire group in that there were significant relationships between the more origina1.A-E scores and highe level occupational aspirations and between being chosen as creative and familial environment in terms of their fathers' high occupational status and high level of parental educational background. No significant re- lationships existed between ordinal status and originality scores. Originality and Future Life. To determine whether those students above the median on originality would choose different things from those students below the median, their future life choices were compared with their composite originality scores. These comparisons are shown in Tables 19 and 20. For the entire group of boys, the items most often chosen were as follows: (1; I want to have a happy life. (Item 3) (2 I want to make lots of money. (Item 2) (3) I want to be a reSpected, harddworking citizen. (Item 9) (h) I want to be an important executive, head of an organi- zation. (Item 1) aw amoHo Hm Zesooe om awsom Amxpsommoa Ho moeoosammomv woo: om HHHdoos weaned beam ocowooma two moHoodoa mo mused. moooone ow aspen orowoo ow wowm macawoa on m meadow ow Hseosomwm onoa oewmwumwwaw.3oawms >ooGo