Su búsqueda

This commentary is focused on Robert Sternberg’s (see record 2018-07419-003) new Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership (ACCEL) model. The new model is well conceived and goes far beyond existing models. It is especially attractive in that the emphasis is on ethics. Now more than ever before there is a clear need for education to support ethical reasoning and behavior, and if this is coupled with active and concerned citizenship, as Sternberg proposes, we may find talents that are as of yet untapped and enormously useful for society. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This reprinted chapter originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly Vol 37(1) Win 1993, 16-22. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1994-01210-001.) Reviews the most recent research on divergent thinking and serves as an addendum to M. A. Runco's (1991; see also PA, Vol 80:34) previous reviews. Several new assessment techniques are examined, including those using either lenient or stringent solution standards, those relying on ideational pools (examinees' total output of ideas), and those involving qualitative aspects of ideation. Recent research (e.g., S. M. Okuda et al; see PA, Vol 78:27045; J. K. Sawyers and N. C. Canestaro; see PA, Vol 78:2821) showing moderately high predictive validity coefficients is also reviewed. The role played by evaluation and valuation in the divergent thinking process is outlined, as is the role of problem definition and problem identification. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

Creativity is an important facet of giftedness. Creativity is, however, very difficult to define and measure. Divergent thinking tests are often used, though of course they really just estimate the potential for creative thought. In the past few years, the technologies for the assessment and enhancement of divergent thinking have changed dramatically. This article reviews the most recent research on divergent thinking. Several new assessment techniques are reviewed, including those using either lenient or stringent solution standards, those relying on ideational pools (examinees' total output of ideas), and those involving qualitative aspects of ideation. Recent research showing moderately high predictive validity coefficients is also reviewed. The role played by evaluation and valuation in the divergent thinking process is outlined, as is the role of problem definition and problem identification. Special considerations for the creativity of gifted children are noted throughout the article, and specific directions for future research on the divergent thinking of gifted children are presented in the conclusion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The relationship of creativity with high-level abilities varies from domain to domain. And just as creative skills often contribute to high-level performances, accomplishment can result from processes and capacities other than creativity. Creativity depends on originality; that is the only facet of creativity on which everyone agrees. Accomplishment and achievement, on the other hand, may reflect other problem-solving skills besides creative problem solving, including some that are more convergent than divergent. Accomplishment also involves persistence, Zeitgeist, and luck, as well as talent. In the remainder of this chapter I focus on creativity, keeping in mind what was just proposed about creativity sometimes being involved in accomplishment, and sometimes interacting with other kinds of abilities, but also recognizing that sometimes creativity is merely potential and unrelated to accomplishment and achievement. This view is consistent with several definitions of giftedness wherein creativity is one aspect of giftedness, and contributes to gifted-level performances, but at the same time can be separated from it. In this chapter I focus even further and explore the extracognitive bases of creativity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter outlines a view of creativity that pinpoints a mechanism that underlies all creative work, including that of children and adults, and that allows objective study and assessment. It is grounded in existing theories of lifespan development, and it translates easily to practice. Examples of such practices are discussed throughout this chapter. This chapter also compares this theory of creative giftedness with other existing theories. We will see that there are both points of agreement and points of disagreement. First, the mechanism underlying original and creative activity is described. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

Previous research suggests that environment can play an important role in encouraging or discouraging creative expression and productivity. Additional research has uncovered a discrepancy between the creativity students express at school and the creativity they express outside of school. The fact that, in previous research, students expressed more creativity outside of school than when in school implies that school discourages creativity. So far, the creativity gap has only been studied with nongifted students. One objective of the present investigation was to check for a similar discrepancy among gifted learners. Four hundred and eighty‐seven middle school and high school students from the State of Kuwait (240 gifted and 247 nongifted) were recruited. The Creativity Activities and Accomplishment Checklist (CAAC) was administered to compare students' creative activities at home and school. The primary finding of this investigation was that the strength of the relationship between creativity at home and creativity at school differed in gifted and nongifted students. What was called a creativity gap existed in both groups, but it was smaller in the gifted group. A second finding was that gifted students expressed more creativity at school compared with the nongifted group, in particular CAAC domains. There were no differences between the gifted and the nongifted groups in the creativity expressed at home, except for one subscale, namely everyday creativity. Although gifted students expressed more creativity at school, compared with their nongifted peers, they were nonetheless more creative at home compared with school. Finally, hierarchical regression analyses indicated that measure of personality significantly moderated the relationship between creativity at home and creativity at school. Limitations and future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The current study examined gender differences in divergent thinking (DT) using meta-analyses of mean difference and variation. The main objective of the meta-analysis of mean difference was to resolve contradictory findings in the creativity literature regarding the prevalence of creativity among males or females in creative potential. The meta-analysis of variation aimed to test the greater male variability hypothesis (GMVH) in DT. To test gender differences in means (i.e., Hedges’ g), results from 213 studies ( k = 1,251; N = 115,289) were analyzed using a three-level approach. Females slightly outperformed males in DT, g = −.065, 95% CI [−.095, −.034], p = ≤ .001. Three-level multiple regression analyses showed that the mean effect size significantly varied by (a) country, (b) DT subscale, (c) type of task, and (d) ability (gifted vs. nongifted). In the second meta-analysis, the GMVH in creative potential was tested by synthesizing the results of 1,152 effect sizes from 187 studies ( k = 1,152; N = 101,328). The results confirmed the existence of greater male variability (GMV) in DT, (InVR) = 1.216, 95% CI [1.14, 1.29], p ≤ .001, indicating 21.6% GMV in DT. Multiple regression analyses explained 29.82% of variability in the mean effect (InVR) at Level-2 (within-studies variance), and 5% of the variability in the mean effect at Level-3 (between-studies variance). The mean difference findings support the gender similarity hypothesis, while variation results tend to support the gender differences hypothesis. Limitations and recommendations for future studies are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The current study examined the relationship between creative potential, estimated with tests of divergent thinking (DT), and emotional intelligence (EI). Previous research has hinted at a relationship, but the EI–DT relationship may differ as a function of the tasks and the specific components of EI. With this in mind, the present investigation compared two DT tests (Social Games vs. Titles Games) and examined whether or not the Interpersonal and Intrapersonal subscales of EI were more associated with DT than the Adaptability and Stress Management EI subscales. The youth version of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i: YV) was used to measure EI. The measure of EI and the two DT tests were administered to 244 male and female gifted (N = 125) and nongifted (N = 119) high school students in Saudi Arabia. The first objective was to examine whether the EI–DT relationship differs based on the nature of the task of the two DT tests used in the current study (Social Games vs. Titles Games). The second objective was to test whether the Interpersonal and Intrapersonal subscales of EI are more associated with DT than the Adaptability and Stress Management EI subscales. Canonical correlation analysis showed that the relationship between the Social Games test and EI was stronger than the relationship between the Titles Games test and EI. Two path analyses were run: one for the total sample and the second for the gifted sample. The likelihood ratio test showed that the Social Games test was more associated with EQ-i subscales than the Titles Games test for both samples. As expected, the Inter- and the Intrapersonal subscales of the EQ-i were more highly related to Social Games fluency and originality scores compared with the Stress Management and Adaptability subscales. Limitations and future directions are discussed.