Creativity and Intelligence in Preschoolers: Preliminary Findings

Kristi Aguirre Frances Conners, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology

Abstract The literature on creativity and intelligence shows many views as to the relationship between the two constructs. However, there is little information focused on this relationship in very young children. The current study looks at the relationship between verbal and nonverbal creativity and verbal and nonverbal IQ in preschool children. Twenty-seven participants were tested using the Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM) task (Torrence, 1981), Multidimensional Stimulus Fluency Measure (MSFM) (Moran, Milgram, Sawyers, & Fu, 1983), and the Stanford Binet V Abbreviated Scale (SB 5 Abbreviated) (Roid, 2003). Analyses include correlations between the total IQ score and each creativity measure as well as each intelligence subtest with both creativity tasks. The results with the limited sample show no significant correlation between the IQ and creativity scores. Creativity and intelligence are among the most important individual characteristics in a progressive society. The greatest advances and discoveries usually result from highly creative and intelligent people. Although the constructs of creativity and intelligence have been defined in many ways, creativity can be defined as the ability to produce something that is both novel and appropriate (Preckel, Holling, & Wiese, 2005, p. 160). Torrance (1969, as cited in Bracken, 1991, p. 174) suggested that, Creative behavior occurs in the process of becoming sensitive to or aware of problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on. Intelligence is commonly understood as the measurement I.Q.

The University of Alabama McNair Journal

The Relationship between Creativity and Intelligence Researchers have long debated the nature of the relation between creativity and intelligence. Some have said that creativity and intelligence are two completely different and independent constructs, an assumption underlying earlier research in the field (e.g., Getzels & Jackson, 1962). Others have said that they are distinct but related constructs (Sternberg, 2000). Hayes (1989, cited in Sternberg, 2000) states that creativity and intelligence are not fundamentally related but that intelligence may be needed in order to display creativity. He noted, for example, that occupations with a type of creative freedom are more likely to require a higher level of education. Torrance (cited in Sternberg & OHara, 2000) concluded from his studies that intelligence and creativity are moderately related at best. Creativity has been said to be a subset of intelligence. Guilford (1950, 1967, 1970, 1975, cited in Sternberg, 2000), theorized that intellect is comprised of 120 different factors, with divergent production being the most relevant to creativity. Divergent production is the generalized gathering of knowledge and use of this knowledge to produce many different ideas in response to problems. In contrast, Sternberg and Lubarts (1995) theory, as cited in Sternberg (2000), considers intelligence to be a subset of creativity. They posit that creativity is comprised of six different elements: intelligence, knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and the environment. Intelligence is comprised of three constructs: synthetic, analytical, and practical abilities. Synthetic ability is the ability to create different ideas that are appropriate to the task at hand. Analytical ability is the ability to give a judgment of the worth of ones ideas, which is measured using conventional intelligence testing. The last construct of intelligence is also relevant to creativity: practical ability is the ability to apply the intellectual skills gained to daily activities. All of these specific abilities are needed in order to exhibit creativity. Other theorists have said that intelligence and creativity are related up to a certain IQ level and then unrelated among individuals with very high IQs (Preckel, Holling, & Wiese 2005). This hypothesis, known as the threshold hypothesis, states that creativity and intelligence are positively correlated up to a certain cut-off point (e.g., 120), beyond which there is no significant correlation. Empirical results suggest there is at least some relatedness of creativity and IQ. For example, a meta-analysis of 100 studies investigating the threshold hypothesis found that there was a small, positive correlation (Kim, 2005). However, the relationship of creativity and intelligence may 2

Creativity and Intelligence in Preschoolers

depend upon exactly what type of creativity is being measured and exactly what type of intelligence is being measured. Sligh, Conners, and RoskosEwoldsen (2005) used two different types of creativity measures as well as a composite IQ score to test the threshold hypothesis. The findings of the study showed that neither fluid intelligence (the ability to verbally or nonverbally reason abstractly) nor crystallized intelligence (knowledge gained from formal education and cultural experiences, verbal or nonverbal) showed support for the threshold hypothesis. Sligh et al. found that two specific aspects of creativity, generation and interpretation, were correlated differently with the composite IQ measure. The study suggests that looking into the different aspects of both intelligence and creativity could be helpful in understanding both constructs. The empirical literature has extremely little to say about the relation between creativity and intelligence in the very young or the very old. Many studies involving older adults focus on either creativity or intelligence separately as they affect daily life, such as emotions and relationships. Ruth and Birren (1985) conducted a study that compared the creativity of three different age groups of adults from age 25 to 75. There was a decrease in creativity as well as in specific parts of intelligence in the sample as the ages of participants increased. Fuchs-Beauchamp, Karnes, and Johnson (1993) looked at the relationship between creativity and intelligence in children identified as eligible for admission to a program for gifted and talented students. Strength of this study includes the large sample of preschool students and the number of participants with an IQ over 120. The results showed moderate positive correlations between the different subscales of creativity and intelligence in children with an IQ less than 120. There was a decrease in correlation coefficients in the group of children with an IQ greater than 120. These results are consistent with the threshold hypothesis. However, due to the number of students with extremely high IQs the study cannot be generalized to the total preschool population. Current Study The current research focuses on preschool-aged children. It examined the relations between verbal and nonverbal creativity and verbal and nonverbal IQ. The first goal of the study was to estimate the relation between creativity and intelligence among preschoolers, using two different tests of creativity and a general IQ measure. The second goal was to examine whether there might be two distinct types of creativity at this age, verbal and nonverbal, and whether they relate differently to verbal and nonverbal intelligence. Children who are higher in verbal intelligence may be the 3

The University of Alabama McNair Journal

ones who are most able to be verbally creative, and those who are higher in nonverbal intelligence may be the ones who are most able to be nonverbally creative. Method Participants Participants were preschool children between three and five years of age. All participants were (a) fluently English-speaking and (b) able to move around in the small testing room (a 5 x 5 space). It is important that participants were English speakers so they could understand the instructions and perform on the tests. It is important that participants had some mobility so they could complete the non-verbal creativity test, which required demonstrating answers using movements. The total number of participants was 27, part of a larger sample which will be examined at a later time. Based on power analysis, 26 participants is an acceptable number to detect a large correlation. Participants received a small school-appropriate prize (e.g., notepad, stickers, and crayons) at the end of each testing session. Apparatus The participants were videotaped during two testing sessions. The video camera used was provided by the University of Alabama Child Development Research Center as part of the research room capabilities. The video recordings were used as a source of backup to the coding done during the testing session and for reliability studies to be done in the future. Measures Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM, Torrance, 1981). The TCAM test measures preschool childrens creative thinking abilities, as demonstrated through movements. This test takes 10-20 minutes. It is designed for ages 3-6. The test consists of four subtests: the How Many Ways? subtest requires children to show different ways to walk or run; the Can You Move Like? subtest requires children to show ways in which various animals (or a tree) might move; the What Other Ways? subtest requires children to show other ways of putting a cup in a wastebasket; the What Might It Be? subtest requires children to show things that could be done with a cup. Childrens responses are scored in terms of fluency, reflecting the total number of different ideas a child pro4

Creativity and Intelligence in Preschoolers

duces, and originality, reflecting how unusual the childs responses are, compared with the responses of the other children. If a response is given by 10% or more of the participants, the originality score is 0, if between 5% and 10% the score is 1, if between 2% and 5% the score is 2, and if less than 2% the score is 3. The current report focuses on the fluency data only; the originality data will be included in a further report. Multidimensional Stimulus Fluency Measure (MSFM, Moran, Milgram, Sawyers, & Fu, 1983) this test measures creativity in preschool-aged children using visual and tactile stimuli and requires verbal responses. The MSFM consists of three subtests: the Instances subtest asks participants to name things in a category (e.g., red things, round things); the Patterns subtest asks participants to provide interpretations of two simple threedimensional shapes; the Uses subtest asks the participant to name common uses for common objects (e.g., box, paper). This test takes 10-20 minutes. As with the TCAM, childrens responses are scored for fluency and originality. Again, the focus on this report is on fluency. Stanford Binet V Abbreviated (SB5-Abbreviated, Roid, 2003). The SB 5-Abbreviated is comprised of two subtests. The Vocabulary subtest requires the child to point to the picture corresponding to the word said by the examiner. The Object Series/Matrices subtest requires the child to choose a piece that completes a pattern. This test requires 10-20 minutes. Each child receives a raw score and an estimated IQ. Procedure Parental consent was collected from each participants parents. Child assent was also verbally given to the examiner at the beginning of each testing session. Participants were individually administered a set of three tests, the TCAM, the MSFM, and the SB5-Abbreviated. These tests are all appropriate for the development levels of the participants in this study. The examiner created a comfortable environment by talking to the participant and making sure the participant was warmed up to the testing. Testing took place in two sessions, with the TCAM in one session (A) and the MSFM and the SB5-Abbreviated in the other session (B). The order of the sessions was counterbalanced across participants to account for testing fatigue and order biases. Total testing time, including start-up, breaks, and wind-down, was about 50 minutes, with Session A being 15-25 minutes and Session B being 20-35 minutes.

The University of Alabama McNair Journal

Results and Discussion The data from the current study were analyzed using Pearson r correlations between the composite IQ score and each creativity task, as well as correlations between each subtest of the IQ measure and each creativity task. Participants ranged in age from 3 years to almost 6 years, with a mean of 4.5 years and standard deviation of .67 years. The total IQ scores range from 79 to 124, with a mean of 101.6 and standard deviation of 11.34. This pattern of IQ scores is expected since the average IQ is 100. The scores on the creativity tasks are also very wide in range. The TCAM total scores range from 8 to 47, and the MSFM total scores range from 11 to 97. The current results with N=27 show no significant correlation between any of the test scores. The current number of participants has the power to detect a large correlation, so if the relations do exist, they are not large. A larger sample of approximately 60 will be run in order to detect possible moderate relationships. There were, however, correlations that show a significant internal reliability for the MSFM. The first subtest of the MSFM and the second subtest of the MSFM have a Pearson r=.828 and the first subtest and the third subtest have a correlation = .562. The second subtest and the third subtest have a correlation of. 580. This shows that the MSFM was a reliable measure in the current study. Both the TCAM and SB 5 are published measures with proven reliability. It can be concluded that unreliability is not the reason for the weak correlations. The results of the current study cannot be generalized widely because of the limited number of participants. The study does, however, suggest that children with high intelligence and those with high creativity may not be the same, which needs to be recognized when working with children, because both characteristics need to be fostered, especially in programs that focus on gifted and talented children. It is necessary for staff of these programs to have a complete grasp of the wide range of creativity and intelligence relationships and variances so that the children are able to achieve the most for their abilities. References Bracken, B.A. (1991). The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children second edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Fuchs-Beauchamp, K., Karnes, M., & Johnson, L. (1993). Creativity and intelligence in preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 113-117. 6

Creativity and Intelligence in Preschoolers

Getzels, J., & Jackson, P. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. Oxford England: Wiley. Kim, K. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57-66. Moran, J.D., Milgram, R.M., Sawyers, J.K., & Fu, V.R. (1983). Original thinking in preschool children. Child Development. 54, 921-926. Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 159-170. Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales (SB5), Fifth Edition. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Ruth, J., & Birren, J. (1985). Creativity in adulthood and old age: Relations to intelligence, sex and mode of testing. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8(1), 99-109. Sligh, A., Conners, F., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2005). Relation of creativity to fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 123-136. Sternberg, R. (2000). Handbook of intelligence. New York. Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R., & OHara, L. (2000). Intelligence and creativity. Handbook of intelligence (pp. 611-630). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. Tegano, D., Moran, J., & Godwin, L. (1986). Cross-validation of two creativity tests designed for preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(4), 387-396. Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement (TCAM). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.