212 Guilford, 1956 Guilford, 1963; Torrance, 1966; Wallach & Kogan, ) fluency 2) flexibility 3) originality 4) elaboration 2001; Facaoaru, 1985

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "212 Guilford, 1956 Guilford, 1963; Torrance, 1966; Wallach & Kogan, ) fluency 2) flexibility 3) originality 4) elaboration 2001; Facaoaru, 1985"

胖祁
5 years ago
Views:

94 47 3 211-227 Chinese Journal of Psychology 2005, Vol. 47, No. 3, 211-227 04006 2004 2 13 2004 10 5 2005 1 20 E-mail: ywlien@ntu.edu.

1 Chinese Journal of Psychology 2005, Vol. 47, No. 3, ywlien@ntu.edu.tw Mednick, 1962 Sternberg & Lubart, 1999psychometric approachesdivergent thinking cognitive approaches e.g., Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992 insight problem Weisberg, Brophy, 1998; Rickards, 1994 e.g., Eysenck, 1993; Martindale, 1995 NSC H H-FA

2 212 Guilford, 1956 Guilford, 1963; Torrance, 1966; Wallach & Kogan, ) fluency 2) flexibility 3) originality 4) elaboration 2001; Facaoaru, 1985 Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991 Weisberg, 1993 Smith & Blankenship, 1991; Wallas 1926 reproductive problem solving productive problem solvingweisberg, 1995 Campbell, 1960; Eysenck, 1993; Finke et al., 1992; Simonton, 1989 Nickerson, 1999; Vartanian, Martindale & Kwiatkowski, 2003 Torrance1988 Finke Finke et al., 1992; Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995; Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999 Geneplore Model 1) generation processes 2)exploratory processes analogical transfer conceptual interpretationfunctional inference searching for limitations preinventive structure Finke alternative hypotheses e.g., Dunbar, 1997; Platt, 1964 Campbelll960 blind variation Eysenck, 1993; Martindale, 1995

3 213 rule discovery task Wason, % 40% 2001; Klayman & Ha, 1989; Wason, Klayman & Ha, 1987; Oaksford & Chater, Tweney et al., ) 2) 3) Dominowski, Geneplore Model Wagner, 1996; Wason, 1977 BACONLangley, Simon, Bradshaw, & Zytkow, Kuhn, 1970; Platt, Klayman & Ha,

4 214 Chi, 1997; Mednick, 1962; Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2001 Chi1997 ontological categories material substancesprocesses mental states radical conceptual change Mednick1962 Kepler associative hierarchy Mednick 1999 Milgram & Rabkin, 1980 e.g., Mednick, Mednick, Mednick, 1962 lexical decision task, LDT 2 LDT semantic priming effect Mednick

5 Klayman & Ha, cm 1.8cm ShiftShift attribute relation % 0.42% 480

6 216 Root: Root: H1 H2 H2 H1 2 H2 H1 H2 H % , t (51.8) = 3.28, p <.01, d = , t (79) = 3.95, p <.01, d = t (60.9) = 0.34, p > , t (59.6) = 1.73, p =.09 manipulation check F (2, 93) , p <.0001 LSD p < F (2,160) = 97.09, p <.001 LSD p <.001p < t (38) = , p < , t (36.3) = 2.04, p <.05, d = t (38) = 0.53, p > t (38) = -.22, p > , t (38) = -.24, p >.1

7 217 = -.22, p < , t(79) = -1.7, p =.09, d = = -.22, p <.05 = -.44, p <.01 =.00 =.10, p <.05 = -.56, p <.001 = -.07, p >.05 = -.44, p <.01 =.00, p >.1 (=.10, p <.05) = -.07, p >.05 = -.56, p < Mednick 1962 Mednick Mednick 1999; Coney & Serna, t(79) = 0.1, p = t (79) = 1.73, p =.09 ms

8 218 r =.23, p <.05 r =.24, p <.05 Mednick Coney & Serna, Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, TTCT ~ +0.4

9 % t (23.7) = , p < t (30.7) = , p < t (38) = -0.62, p > t (38) = -0.37, p > t (38) = 0.73, p > t (38) = , p > t (38) = -0.13, p > t (28.4) = 0.64, p > , t (79) = -1.40, p > , t (79) = 0.98, p > **.86**.63**.37**.33**.26*.19.24*.14.77**.20.23*.22*.56**.48**.28*.24*.40** ** **.52** **.03 * p <.05. **p <.01.

10 % 79.01% 65.43% 80.24% 4.94% 2.47% e.g., Klayman & Ha, 1989; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999; Tukey, % vs. 21.2% Klayman & Ha, r = 0.25, p <.05 r = 0.4, p < working memory Lin & Lien, 2004 e.g., 2001; Facaoaru, 1985; Okuda et al., Smith, Carlsson, & Sandstrom, 1985; Smith & Danielsson, 1978 e.g., Tukey, 1986

11 221 creation discovery Meyer, 1974; Stent, 1972, 2001 domain-specific Gough, 1976 e.g., Amabile, 1983; Cropley, 1992; Perkins, 1990; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996 Nickerson, 1999 Osborn, 1953, 1963 Plucker & Renzulli, 1999 Clapham, 1996 Cropley1992 Parloff Handlon 1964 selfcriticism Tweney et al., % Mednick Mednick1967 RAT RAT Kasof, 1997 word association test for a review, 1999 Joy, LDT 77.8% LDT 22.2% LDT LDT p.1

12 stimulus-onset asynchrony, SOA 250 SOA 96 SOA SOA 250 ms SOA 1000 ms 250 ms SOA SOA 6. 5% 7. t Levene Welch-Satterthwaite df 7. d d = t [(1/n 1 )+(1/n 2 )].5 Cortina & Nouri, 2000 t t n 1 n ms 3000ms % Cohen1988 d = Mednick Coney & Serna, Mednick (3) (2) NSC S Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11, Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across onto-

13 223 logical categories flexibly. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Clapham, M. M. (1996). The construct validity of divergent scores in the structure-of-intellect learning abilities test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Coney, J., & Serna, P. (1995). Creative thinking from an information processing perspective: A new approach to Mednick s theory of associative hierarchies. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(2), Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ: Atherton. Dominowski, R. L. (1995). Productive problem solving. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Esyenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, Facaoaru, C. (1985). Creativity in science and technology. Bern: Huber. Finke, R. A., Ward, T.B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(3), Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, Guilford, J. P. (1963). Potentiality for creativity and its measurement. In Gardner, Eric F. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1962 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems (pp ). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Joy, S. (2001). The need to be different predicts divergent production: Toward a social learning model of originality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1), Kasof, J. (1997). Creativity and breadth of attention. Creativity Research Journal, 10, Klayman, J., & Ha. Y-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), Klayman, J., & Ha. Y-W. (1989). Hypothesis testing in rule discovery: strategy, structure, and content. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15(4), Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. (2 nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langley, P., Simon, H. A.,Bradshaw, G. L., & Zytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lin, W-L, & Lien, Y-W. (2004). The influence of memory load on different creativity tasks. In the 28 th International Congress of Psychology. Beijing. Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In Smith, S. M., & Ward, T. B. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiner s Manual: Remote Association Test. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Meyer, L. B. (1974). Concerning the sciences, the art - and the humanities. Critical Inquiry, 1, Milgram, R. M., & Rabkin, L. (1980). Developmental test of Mednick s associative hierarchies of original thinking. Developmental Psychology, 16(2), Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In Sternberg R. J. (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). Another look at eliminative and enumerative behavior in a con-

14 224 ceptual task. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of realworld problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9(1), Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner s. Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York: Scribner s. Parloff, M. D., & Handlon, J. H. (1964). The influence of criticalness on creative problem solving. Psychiatry, 27, Perkins, D. N. (1990). The nature and nurture of creativity. In Jones, B. F., & Idol, L. (Eds). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instructions. (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rickards, T. J. (1994). Creativity from a business school perspective: past, present and future. In S.G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestein & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing anti developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Simonton, D. K. (1989). Chance-configuration theory of scientific creativity. In Gholson, B., Shadish, W. R., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.), Psychology of science (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, GJW., Carlsson, I., & Sandstrom S. (1985). Artists and artistic creativity. Psychological Research Bulletin, 25, Smith, GJW., & Danielsson A. (1978). Richness in ideas, ego-involvement and efficiency in a group of scientists and humanists: a study of creativity using a process-oriented technique. Psychological Research Bulletin, 18, Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 104, Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (1995). Cognitive processes in creative contexts. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The Creative Cognition Approach (pp. 1-8). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Stent, G. S. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227, Stent, G. S. (2001). Meaning in art and science. In Pfenninger, K. H., & Shubik, V. R. (Eds.), The origins of creativity (pp ). New York: Oxford University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). The propulsion model of creative contributions applied to the arts and letters. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), Sternberg R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In Sternberg, R. J.(Ed), Handbook of creativity (pp3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Princeton, N. J.: Personnel Press, Inc. Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in testing. In Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The nature of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tukey, D. D. (1986). A philosophical and empirical analysis of subjects modes of inquiry in Wason s task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A, Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., Worner, W. J., Pliske, D. B., Mynatt, C. R., Gross, K. A., & Arkkelin, D. L. (1980). Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32, Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., & Kwiatkowski, J. (2003). Creativity and inductive reasoning: The relationship between divergent thinking and performance on Wason s task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, Wagner, C. (1996). Creative behavior through basic

15 225 inferences: Evidence from person-computer interactions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(2), Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity and intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In Sternberg R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, Wason, P. C. (1977). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses... a second look. In Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Wason, P. C. (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp ). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity. New York: Freeman. Weisberg, R. W. (1995). Case studies of creative thinking: reproduction versus restructuring in the real world. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

17 227 Is the More the Better? The Role of Divergent Thinking in Creative Problem Solving Wei-Lun Lin Yunn-Wen Lien Chun-Hui Jen Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University It is often thought that divergent thinking is the base for solving problem creatively, for the more ideas an individual generates, the more likely he will hit the answer. This idea however has never been tested empirically, partly due to a lack of measurable index regarding the creativity of hypothesis generation. The current research therefore aimed at 1) defining an index featuring creativity in hypothesis generation; 2) investigating the relation between divergent thinking and creativity in problem solving, which has been reframed as a process of generating and revising hypotheses to reach a goal by many researchers. The authors argued that the problem, a rule discovery task which had long been regarded as a task involving inductive reasoning, could be regarded as an insight problem from the perspective of hypothesis generation, and therefore suitable for representing creativity in problem solving. Since many subjects who failed to discover the correct rule in problem were due to lack of perspective shifting while generating hypothesis, the authors therefore proposed that how different a new hypothesis is from the previous ones could serve as an useful index for creativity in problem solving. New-perspective hypotheses only referred to those hypotheses that located in different branches at the most and the second most abstract levels of the tree diagram composed of all the hypotheses generated in the problem by all the 81subjects in the current research. Experiment 1 aimed at justifying the new index by establishing its relation with the association theory of creativity (Mednick, 1962). A Lexical Decision Task (LDT) was designed to measure the different abilities of remote association, indicated by the differences in priming effect between strong- and weak-associated word pairs. The results of 81 subjects from National Taiwan University showed that remote association ability significantly correlated with the generation of new-perspective hypotheses in problem, which then predicted the solving of the problem. Experiment 2 then investigated whether the ability of divergent thinking would predict the creativity in hypothesis generation represented by the new-established index as well as the success in problem solving. The same group of subjects performed a Chinese version of Divergent Thinking Test (Wu, 1998) a week from Experiment 1. The results showed the scores of divergent thinking test predicted neither the creativity in hypothesis generation nor the success rate of solving the problem. Implications for distinguishing creativity required by art creation and scientific discovery as well as for enhancing creativity were discussed. Keywords: problem, hypothesis generation, divergent thinking, insight problem, creativity

<4D6963726F736F667420576F7264202D20B169A7B1B4402EB1E4B3C7A6702EB169B061B0B7>

<4D6963726F736F667420576F7264202D20B169A7B1B4402EB1E4B3C7A6702EB169B061B0B7> 由神經科學評析創造力之發展 / 張妤婷曹傑如張軒健 47 由神經科學評析創造力之發展張妤婷 1 曹傑如 2 3 張軒健 1 臺中教育大學教育學系 2 臺中教育大學教育測驗統計研究所 3 臺中教育大學特殊教育學系壹前言創造力是一種生產