On the Trail of Creativity: Dimensionality of Divergent Thinking and its Relation with Cognitive Abilities, Personality, and Insight

S Weiss,D Steger,A Hildebrandt,Y Kaur,O Wilhelm,U Schroeders

doi:10.1002/per.2288

Abstract

Divergent thinking (DT) is an important constituent of creativity that captures aspects of fluency and originality. The literature lacks multivariate studies that report relationships between DT and its aspects with relevant covariates, such as cognitive abilities, personality traits (e.g. openness), and insight. In two multivariate studies ( N = 152 and N = 298), we evaluate competing measurement models for a variety of DT tests and examine the relationship between DT and established cognitive abilities, personality traits, and insight. A nested factor model with a general DT and a nested originality factor described the data well. In Study 1, DT was moderately related with working memory, fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and mental speed. In Study 2, we replicate these results and add insight, openness, extraversion, and honesty–humility as covariates. DT was associated with insight, extraversion, and honesty–humility, whereas crystallized intelligence mediated the relationship between openness and DT. In contrast, the nested originality factor (i.e. the specificity of originality tasks beyond other DT tasks) had low variance and was not meaningfully related with any other constructs in the nomological net. We highlight avenues for future research by discussing issues of measurement and scoring.

Highlights

For over a century, researchers are trying to assess and understand creativity (e.g. Patrick, 1935), which has been related to both typical behaviour and maximal effort
We model Divergent thinking (DT) based on fluency and originality indicators, cognitive abilities, insight, and personality traits in a confirmatory factor analytical framework
We have summarized the current state of affairs, applied a comprehensive battery of DT tasks, and compared competing measurement models

Summary

Introduction

Researchers are trying to assess and understand creativity (e.g. Patrick, 1935), which has been related to both typical behaviour (e.g. personality; Guilford, 1950) and maximal effort (e.g. intellect; Guilford, 1967). Researchers are trying to assess and understand creativity Creativity has been described as a crucial human source of action in work context (PWC, 2016): an increasing number of studies are examining it within a school context. Creative thinking assessment has been included in the innovative domain for the upcoming PISA 2021 study (see ACT, n.d.; Barbot, Hass, & Reiter-Palmon, 2019). Despite its growing societal relevance, creativity remains poorly understood as a construct, even after over half a century of research. We aim to better understand creativity and ways to assess it. One way to do so is to embed creativity in the nomological net of established abilities and traits. The purpose of the present studies is to improve our understanding of creativity as a unique construct and individual differences in creativity

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion